Sitting of 14 December 1993

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

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Higher Education
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to encourage universities and other institutes of higher education to accept candidates with qualifications other than A-levels.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Government have successfully sought to increase and widen participation in higher education. A range of entry routes is now available including GCE A-levels and AS examinations, advanced general national vocational
    814
    qualifications and their precursors and access courses. The Government encourage higher education institutions to give all candidates for admission equal consideration, whatever their entry route.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that while sixth formers now have more choice of examinations than ever before for entry into higher education, universities still press for A-levels? Does he agree that in the United States, where I studied, in France, in Germany and in Japan, people who want to go to university are not forced at the age of 15 or 16 to concentrate on just two or three subjects? Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be advantageous to people aged 15 and 16 if they were able to study a far broader range of subjects?
    Mr. Boswell: I am interested in the comments of my hon. Friend, but I do not think that the position is quite as he states it. For example, about 10 per cent. of entrants to degree courses hold the B Tech qualification alone, and entries to engineering courses include 20 per cent. of students who have come from so-called non-conventional routes. We do not control the universities or their admission policies, although we can issue encouragement to them and we have played our part by developing high-quality vocational and access pathways as alternatives to the A-level route.
    Mr. Rooker: What actions are the Government taking in respect of professional institutions that are required to validate and accredit degrees from universities and to accept the quality of the output of degrees, as, in the past year, one institution removed its accreditation from three universities for an engineering course—not because of the quality of output of graduates but because of the qualifications that the students attained before going to university? That issue must be tackled by Ministers from the other side by seeking to put pressure on professional institutions to accept quality of output whatever the input.
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman raises a characteristically thoughtful point and we are certainly in consultation with the Engineering Council and the providers to look at that problem.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Have not A-levels become not so much a gold standard as a golden calf? Does my right hon. Friend accept that for our cleverest young people A-levels represent an absurdly narrow educational experience while for those less than the cleverest struggling for two years to secure, say, a D or an E grade is like stumbling around in an academic tunnel? Will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage schools and colleges to find better ways to combine breadth with rigour?
    Mr. Boswell: The issue is to get all players—not just higher education institutions but employers, parents, teacher and students—to look for appropriate courses and pathways for the students involved. I agree that for some people who embark on A-level courses it may be much better to take part in one of the high-level vocational courses now on offer. I am delighted that such courses are now accepted and practised by some 80,000 people on the general national vocational qualification route. That provides an important pathway to the future that will involve at least a quarter of our young people in three years' time.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Actions speak louder than words. Have not the Government decisions ensured that whatever qualifications our young people obtain in their examinations in the coming year, opportunities for access to higher education have been reduced by Government funding cuts and all our students will find it tougher to get into higher education next year than they have this year?
    Mr. Boswell: I was about to, and I still will, welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Labour Front Bench, but he will have to do better than that. British higher education has the largest graduate output as a percentage of young people in Europe. It has the highest graduate participation we have ever had in this country, and that percentage participation will be sustained on the back of the most generous settlement achieved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the public expenditure survey for the coming year.

    Assisted Places
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils benefit from the assisted places scheme.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): In the academic year 1992–93, the latest year for which information is complete, 28,674 pupils held assisted places in England. I am not responsible for Wales.
    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among those 28,000 pupils are 234 boys at Haberdashers' Aske's school in my constituency? Is he aware how deeply the parents of those boys appreciate the educational opportunity offered by those places, which they could not otherwise afford and which could be filled many times over by full fee-paying parents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme should continue and should not be denied, as Opposition Members would have it?
    Mr. Patten: Haberdashers' Aske's is a fine school with high standards and I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on having such a school. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats want to abolish the assisted places scheme. They also want to abolish grammar schools, performance tables, charitable relief for public schools and, above all else, grant-maintained schools, where today half a million children are being educated. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats simply want to abolish excellence.
    Mr. Steinberg: Will the Secretary of State explain why he thinks that the Government should subsidise private education from state funds when the state is strapped for resources in the first place? Is it not just a way of putting state money into private education, as the results achieved by children are no better than they would have achieved in the state sector?
    Mr. Patten: There speaks the authentic neanderthal voice of the National Union of Teachers. After the public expenditure settlement a couple of weeks ago, I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks extraordinary. It is important, particularly in areas where there is little choice, for the Government to ensure that children and their parents have a choice. That is why we are committed to the assisted places scheme and will maintain and expand it according to the plans that I have already announced.
    Mr. Dunn: Was not the assisted places scheme introduced over 12 years ago against the direct wishes of the vested interests represented on the Opposition Benches? For children from disadvantaged families in our inner cities it was the best opportunity for a decent education that they could ever have or hope for. Will my right hon. Friend continue to expand the scheme in as many ways as he can achieve?
    Mr. Patten: I want to ensure that every hon. Member is aware that it is the Government's policy to ensure that every child has as good a start in life as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who went to a grammar school and was educated at Oxford university. If the assisted places scheme helps others to achieve the same opportunities as the hon. Member for Bolsover, we want to make it available for everybody.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Madam Speaker: No. 3—Mr. Banks.

    Stratford School
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he intends to take in the light of the examination results at Stratford grant-maintained school.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): It is for the governors of the school to take whatever steps are necessary to improve the school's academic performance.
    Mr. Banks: I was tempted to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Is the Minister aware that before Stratford school opted out, its exam results were above average in the London borough of Newham, and that since it achieved grant-maintained status it has been below average? The Office for Standards in Education has moved in to inspect it because it is perceived to have failed. Under the legislation, there is no provision for an education association to be imposed to replace those governors. What does the Minister intend to do about Stratford school? Will he simply throw more money at it? Is he aware that the school is touting for pupils in the area? It is a total mess as a result of interference on ideological grounds by his wretched Government playing party politics with the educational needs of the kids in my constituency.
    Mr. Squire: Even at a time of charitable Christmas good will to the hon. Gentleman, I find comments about political interference from such a source rather rich. He is right to say that we are awaiting the result of the inspection report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wish to study that report before determining the next steps to take. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the school's examination results in the past year were disappointing, but it would be unusual if we were to take excessive action on the basis of one year's examination results—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I adjudge that there is now complete agreement across the Floor of the Chamber about the excellence of schools and how we should be raising standards. I entirely welcome that. Let there be no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman's question is motivated by a desire to raise standards at that school, he will find the

    817
    same desire on this side of the Chamber. Powers are available, in extremis, to the Secretary of State to cope with the problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status; and what measures he is taking to speed up the process.
    Mr. Patten: One thousand and thirty schools have voted to apply for grant-maintained status, and there are more schools with ballots pending.
    Measures in the Education Act 1992 to speed up and ease the transition to grant-maintained status include the need for only one governors' resolution before holding a ballot and a shorter timetable for the subsequent stages of acquiring grant-maintained status.
    From 1 January 1994, every LEA-maintained school will be required to consider grant-maintained status and report to parents on the outcome of its consideration every year in future.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the 10 schools at the bottom of the league table are not grant maintained but controlled by Labour authorities? Will he also confirm that the lot opposite do not like competition at any level because when they compete every four years they get stuffed out of sight, and they will continue to get stuffed out of sight while they have rag, tag and bobtail policies?
    Mr. Patten: That was a characteristically sub fusc question from my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). I confirm that what he said is absolutely right, both about the schools at the bottom of the performance table—we must try to help them or we shall have to close them down—and about the local education authorities. The 10 worst performing schools are controlled by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in the war years, when people had to fight to get to those places, my parents were proud that I won a county minor scholarship to Tupton Hall? I was surrounded by people who had been sent there because they had paid. Is the Minister aware that when I went to Oxford I went to the working-class Ruskin college? Is he also aware that, unlike him and many others on the Government Front Bench, I did not go to public schools and, unlike him, was not educated beyond my intelligence?
    Mr. Patten: As a matter of fact, neither did I. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should look up the facts and see what sort of school I went to. It was then a grammar school, of which I was proud. It is now a comprehensive school and I hope that it will shortly go grant maintained. I am proud of the education that I got there, as the hon. Gentleman is doubtless proud of the very good education that he got at Tupton Hall grammar school. I am sure that his parents were rightly proud of him, although if they were here I doubt whether they would be proud of his question this afternoon, which showed all the intellectual coherence of Mr. Blobby.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend, in his customary warm-hearted way, extend his congratulations
    818
    to Geoff Lennox, who was first chairman and then director of education on left-wing Derbyshire county council, and who dedicated his career to fighting the opting out of schools and the contracting out of services? He has proved that it is never too late to learn—by joining a private sector company dedicated to selling contracted-out services to opted-out schools.
    Mr. Patten: Doubtless the experience of working with Derbyshire finally persuaded Mr. Lennox to show common sense. All over the country there is a good and fruitful partnership between state and private sectors. I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent on his wise choice of future career.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Is it not true that, despite all the Government's efforts to push schools into grant-maintained status, only a small percentage of schools in England and Wales are grant maintained? Is it not also true that, in the past three months, two thirds fewer schools have voted for GM status than in the same three months last year, and that twice as many are now voting not to opt out? Is it not further true that the vast majority of schools have seen through the con trick of GM status and want to remain with local education authorities which are, in the main, Labour controlled? Would it not make more sense to divert the excessive resources in GM schools to all state schools?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is not as well informed as he should be. Since the beginning of the balloting on grant-maintained status, month after month—including the past three months—eight out of every 10 schools have voted yes, and only two against. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the considerable educational benefits of grant-maintained schools. The published results in the performance tables last month showed their excellent performance, and I predict that by the time of the next election—and Labour's fifth defeat in a row—about two thirds of the secondary schools in this country will be grant maintained. This will be an irreversible change.
    Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning local authorities that oppose grant-maintained status not for educational reasons but for political reasons? Will he join me in condemning authorities that do not put the children first and whose first responsibility is to themselves and their own jobs and empires? Will my right hon. Friend go on to say what action he intends to take to promote GM status, not just through governing bodies but through the parents who want it?
    Mr. Patten: I think that parents and others are only too well involved. After all, there are the proud parents of the 500,000 children being educated in GM schools. An enraged group of governors and teachers from Lincolnshire came to see me this morning to complain about the attitude of Lincolnshire local education authority to GM schools. They complained in particular about the new and cruel form of 11-plus on which the LEA is insisting—causing maximum stress for the children and having to be taken on Saturday mornings instead of during the school week so that the children being tested for grammar school entry in Lincolnshire do not even notice. New authorities formed by new types of political control in counties such as Lincolnshire should think carefully before putting children under stress in this way.

    Swimming
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures have been taken to increase the number of children leaving primary schools who can swim.
    Mr. Robin Squire: The national curriculum for physical education requires that all pupils should by the age of 11 be able to swim unaided at least 25 metres and demonstrate an understanding of water safety. This requirement becomes effective from August next year.
    Ms Hoey: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern not just in the Amateur Swimming Association but among all people who care about young people being able to swim and a fear that there may be some going back on that commitment in Sir Ron Dearing's review of the national curriculum? Will the Minister give a commitment that swimming will remain part of the national curriculum and say what concrete measures will be taken to ensure that all primary schools can afford to get their children to swimming pools, which causes great difficulties in inner-city areas? What resources will be put in and will he ensure that they will be available when needed?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of swimming. That is why it features in the national curriculum, as it has done since 1992, along with other physical education requirements. There has been significant funding of the national curriculum in recent years. We believe that it should be possible for the minority of schools that do not currently have access to swimming pools to find additional funding from their existing resources.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies in Britain is that small children still die from drowning? It is extremely encouraging that almost 70 per cent. of primary schools now have swimming pools on site and more than 80 per cent. provide swimming training.
    Mr. Squire: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It sounds as though my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) has struck a chord. I endorse what he said and remind Opposition Members, who may have overlooked the report, that in late 1989 a survey showed that more than 80 per cent. of primary schools had access to swimming facilities of one sort or another. I concur with my hon. Friend's views on the importance of the subject, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey).

    Tertiary Education
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the global amounts paid for tertiary education in England and Wales for the past three years for eligible students from the European Union; and if he will give the figures for individual countries.
    Mr. Boswell: In 1991–92, total spending by the Department on higher education was in excess of £5,000 million. The amount attributable to students from other European Community member states studying in England and Wales is estimated on the basis of average unit costs at approximately £105 million. The numbers from individual member states are given in Department for
    820
    Education statistical bulletins available in the Library. British nationals studying elsewhere in the European Community enjoy reciprocal rights.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Do they enjoy reciprocal arrangements in all other European Community countries? Is it not a fact that we carry a fair part of the European budget and also subsidise the education of students from some of those countries to the detriment of our own budgetary requirements?
    Mr. Boswell: I can confirm that we are obliged, under the Gravier judgment of 1985 by the European Court of Justice, to provide nationals of other European Community member states with access to higher education on the same terms as nationals of the host state. The United Kingdom has implemented that judgment at some cost to its Exchequer. Other EC member states have an obligation to comply with it.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: While welcoming the fact that European students find our institutions so excellent that they wish to come here, may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that they do not do so at the expense of our mature students? Will he consider the case of one of my constituents, who is over 50 and has been made redundant? He had a 14-year-old child, and he and his wife worked out that they could just, by the skin of their teeth, afford to go to university. When they heard that there was to be a cut of 10 per cent. in the grant and the husband was not eligible for a loan, they realised that that would put an end to his career. Could mature students who are over 50 be included in the loan system now that the grants are to be cut?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend ingeniously introduces an additional issue related to the student support package. It has never been our practice to extend the loan scheme to the over-50s, on the ground that they have a comparatively short career ahead of them to repay their loans. However, I note the point that my hon. Friend made. From the student numbers that we have been able to put through our system and from the fast expansion in the number of mature students—about 150 per cent. in the past eight years—I can assure my hon. Friend that there is ample access to higher education in Britain for Britain's mature and other students, as well as those that we take from other European Community countries.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Rather than moaning about the number of foreign students coming to British institutions, should we not encourage our young people to study in institutions in other countries, particularly Community countries? Is not one barrier to that process the fact that we still teach languages in our schools so incompetently that many young people do not feel able to take advantage of such educational facilities? What steps do the Government intend to take to improve that vital part of our young people's education?
    Mr. Boswell: It is rather interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman attacking teachers for their incompetence in delivering modern language teaching. I have not heard much of that in the past. The Government have introduced a requirement under the national curriculum for the teaching of a modern foreign language. We are actively exploring with our European partners the possibility of changes in the higher education programmes of the Community—for example, the Lingua programme—for

    821
    the purpose of exploring the objective that we share, which is to encourage a proper, reciprocal, two-way flow of students. That involves Europeans wishing to study in the United Kingdom and equally our students wishing to study in European institutions.

    School Buses (Seat Belts)
    Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to advise local education authorities to ensure that children travelling on school buses are wearing seat belts.
    Mr. Boswell: In 1991, the Department endorsed a report by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents on school transport safety and arranged for its distribution to all LEAs and schools. The report included a code of good practice, which recommends that children should always wear belts where fitted on school buses and minibuses.
    Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend's advice currently extends only to those buses already fitted with seat belts, does he think that it should be extended further? Does he acknowledge the force of the BUSC campaign, which began in my constituency? Will he advise LEAs to restrict contracts for bus operators to those that guarantee that every one of their buses will be fitted with seat belts and that children will be made to wear them?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend should be aware that it is for LEAs to decide their own policies in these matters. He should also be aware that a high proportion of school buses and coaches—indeed, coaches generally—are not currently fitted with seat belts. In addition, the overall requirements of the construction and use of motor vehicles are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Nevertheless, I shall certainly listen to what BUSC has to say and reflect on it in the light of recent events.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that only last week there was a tragic accident in Leeds involving a school bus that was taking the children of St. Michaels school on a day trip? The common practice of having three children to two seats was in operation on that bus. Will the Department urgently issue a code of guidance to schools on that practice? Some of us think that three children to two seats is a budget-saving measure rather than a measure to ensure the safety of our children.
    Mr. Boswell: About 850,000 of our children either travel on school buses or receive other help with school transport and, sadly, accidents happen from time to time. They are of very different natures and we consider all the circumstances surrounding them.
    The working party that prepared the RoSPA report on school transport safety found no evidence that the three-to-two concession had caused any accidents. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, perhaps he will bring it to my attention.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary schools have achieved grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Robin Squire: Some 182 primary schools are now grant maintained or self-governing. A further 93 schools have been approved for self-governing status and we look forward to welcoming them to the sector in January and April next year. There has been a fivefold increase in the number of self-governing primary schools operating since last year's general election and the number continues to grow.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that if parents genuinely want education to cease being used as a political football they would do well to opt for grant-maintained status? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that those schools that have taken grant-maintained status enjoy better motivation of both teachers and pupils? By voting for grant-maintained status, parents would reap a very handsome dividend.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right on every point. A report of the independent inspectorate, Ofsted, earlier this year highlighted improved teacher morale and pupil attendance in grant-maintained schools, and recent exam results show that, comparing comprehensives with comprehensives, grant-maintained schools have significantly better results than local education authority schools.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Why do not Ministers come clean about the trend away from, not towards, grant-maintained schools? Why does not the Minister confirm that only the other day in his constituency a school voted against grant-maintained status; that, as was said earlier, the number of ballots taking place is going down and not up; that the number of no votes is going up and not down; and that parents have now rumbled the fact that, as Stratford shows, grant-maintained status provides neither a better education nor a better way for Ministers to deal with any problems that exist? Ministers should come clean and say that parents have seen what Ministers are still blind to—grant-maintained status does not guarantee education opportunity.
    Mr. Squire: Any suggestion that Ministers should come clean from the party that runs Tower Hamlets is a bit rich. As to the hon. Gentleman's comments on individual grant-maintained schools, or non-grant-maintained schools in the case of one vote in my constituency, the words "straws" and "clutching" come to mind. The underlying position remains that, month in, month out, a significant majority of voters vote yes. One's heart goes out at times to parents and governors who are struggling against the organised opposition of Opposition Members and their parties. When they finally have the chance to vote, they vote for freedom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Will my hon. Friend reassure parents and some teachers in primary schools in my constituency that the malevolent operation of Labour-controlled Merton council to prevent some primary schools from opting out will be controlled in some way or another?
    Mr. Squire: I immediately assure my right hon. Friend that, from 1 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have enhanced powers, in particular to tackle abuses that might occur in the balloting procedure and to cover information going to parents when they vote, which he will not hesitate to use in the appropriate circumstances.
    Mr. Enright: If grant-maintained status is so attractive, why will not the Government allow schools to vote to opt out of grant-maintained status?
    Mr. Squire: That is an entirely theoretical question. In all my journeys around the country visiting grant-maintained schools and talking to their heads I have not found one head who would even consider the option of returning to local education authority control.

    Testing
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are being taken to remove unnecessary bureaucracy in the testing arrangements under the national curriculum following the publication of the Dearing report.
    Mr. Patten: We have accepted the Dearing report in full. Testing and marking time for the tests has been halved and there will far less form filling for teachers. The 1994 tests will be much slimmer, but they will remain as fair and as demanding as possible.
    Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that in my constituency, as elsewhere in the country, there was genuine concern among responsible teachers about the complexity of the original tests, but is he also aware that those same teachers are now delighted that the tests are being slimmed down and will be properly piloted? Will he ensure that teachers continue to be properly consulted and that he brooks no opposition from trade unions, some of which were opposed to any testing at all?
    Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. He is right about the useful consultations on testing that have gone on and will continue. He will be aware, as I am, that in some counties, including, I believe, Hampshire, it was the local education authority that decided to put complicated tick lists, as they are known in the trade, into schools, which made tasks unnecessarily complicated. They were never laid down by the Government. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, in its handling of its responsibilities since 1 October, has been a model of efficiency. No teacher, deputy head teacher, head teacher or governor could possibly complain that they have not had promptly all the material that they need.

    Primary School Standards
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the progress of his measures to improve standards in primary schools.
    Mr. Patten: The national curriculum and testing continue to secure higher standards in primary schools. That is confirmed in the first annual report published by Professor Sutherland, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools last week, and in a report published by Ofsted today on testing. Both of those highlight the clear improvements brought about by present educational policies. But there is still room for improvement and we are continuing to work to raise standards in all our schools and to encourage higher-quality teaching for all our children at the level that the best already achieve.
    Mr. Martin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most sensible people want to be assured that children in our
    824
    primary schools are properly taught to read and write and to grasp the basic principles of arithmetic? In what specific ways do Government reforms carry these vital objectives forward?
    Mr. Patten: They do so in two important ways: by the introduction of the national curriculum and by the introduction of regular testing. In addition, as report after report from the independent inspectorate, Ofsted, shows, teacher expectations need to be as high as possible. In the best of our 20,000 primary schools in England—and England has many good primary schools—teacher expectations are extremely high. All the academic evidence points to the need for enhanced teacher expectation. Children enjoy a challenge and the greater the challenge, the better they perform.
    Mr. Litherland: One way to improve primary education is to give adequate funding for proper repairs to schools. Does the Minister accept that it is totally unfair to ask teachers to teach our children in the deplorable conditions that are experienced in inner-city Manchester?
    Mr. Patten: I do not want to stir up yet another local education authority, but I have to say that the way in which Manchester local education authority has conducted its repair programme over the years is not necessarily a paragon of virtue to hold up to metropolitan authorities. Adequate funds have flowed to Manchester over the years; the question is why they have not been properly used.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that standards in primary schools, as in all types of schools, greatly depend on the quality of teaching and teacher training, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept the congratulations of the country and of hon. Members in all parts of the House on the fact that we are at last tackling the improvement and reform of teacher training? Will he also take up the question of establishing a staff college for head and senior teachers as a back-up for the reform of teacher training?
    Mr. Patten: With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, I wish that we had started our programme of vital education reforms 15 years ago with the reform of teacher training. That is when we should have started, but 15 years later we are getting going on it. My hon. Friend raises an important matter that has been put to me by head teachers who are more articulate and more sensible in discussing these matters than Opposition Members. The concept of a staff college for head teachers, deputy head teachers and aspiring heads and deputy heads is worth considering in discussions between the teaching profession and me. Anything that we can do to enhance the professional standing of teaching is good.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's response to the recommendation of the National Commission for Education on nursery education for three and four-year-olds.
    Mr. Robin Squire: The national commission proposal for free state nursery education for all three and four-year-olds conflicts with our policy of choice and

    825
    diversity of provision which best meets the varied needs of children and their parents. It is also unrealistic in resource terms.
    Mr. Chisholm: Is the Minister prepared to listen to research evidence rather than prejudice for a change? All the evidence shows that three and four-year-olds benefit socially and educationally from nursery provision. Does he accept that we are at the bottom of the European league for such provision and that there is good nursery education only under Labour local authorities such as Lothian, in whose area all four-year-olds receive free nursery education? How is the situation to be improved, given that the public expenditure round has been the worst for 14 years, with cuts targeted particularly on local authorities?
    Mr. Squire: The Government are always willing to consider research conducted on that and many other subjects, but the research does not entirely substantiate what the hon. Gentleman said. It certainly confirms the advantage of pre-school experience, but not quite as strongly as the hon. Gentleman suggested. In response to his comments on political parties, I gently point out to him that Wandsworth council, which is under Conservative control and will remain so for many years, opts for 100 per cent. availability of nursery education.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the many parents in the Pre-School Playgroups Association, which provides such wonderful experience for our children, and will he condemn the fact that, although the Liberal Democrats constantly tell us how much they care about education, only one of them had bothered to turn up for education questions before the television cameras came on?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes the point about the Liberal Democrats more clearly than I could. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the Pre-School Playgroups Association. I had the pleasure of attending its annual conference recently and it is a first-class body of women and men, which does tremendous work across the country. If one or two local education authorities included the PPA in provision for under-fives, I suspect that they would have more choice. That is the sort of thing that we want to see happening everywhere.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.
    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. Etherington: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House how, at a time of national financial restraint, he can justify the expenditure of £15 million of taxpayers' money by him and his Cabinet colleagues on entertainment? I understand that that fund is appropriately known as the drinks cabinet. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that expenditure is little less than a scandal, when public service workers are being told that
    826
    they face an indefinite wage freeze and does not it provide yet again that under his Administration there is one law for the powerful and another for the powerless?
    The Prime Minister: At least the hon. Gentleman may be remembered for having made the worst pre-Christmas joke of the year. I happen to have the figures for No. 10 in front of me and I can tell him that expenditure on official hospitality at No. 10 was 27 per cent. lower than in previous years.
    Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the upper schools in my constituency have opted out of local authority control—(Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the upper schools in my constituency have opted out of local authority control and that one of them—the Anglo-European school, which has an international reputation—is under threat from Essex county council because of a decision by the Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition to withdraw discretionary fares? That school has been the jewel in the crown of Essex. It has a high reputation for language training, and represents—[Interruption] Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning this—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman now. Thank you.
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's pleasure in the number of schools that have become grant maintained, which now exceeds 1,000. I have not heard about the specific problem concerning a particular school in Essex, under the control of the Liberal Democrats, and I am sorry if there appears to be discrimination against the school.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is disgraceful that the sums of money being spent in the health service on increased bureaucracy, huge salaries and perks for managers and glossy public relations seem totally out of control?
    The Prime Minister: I do not share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that the expenditure is out of control. I do not believe that it is. The amount of expenditure on administration in the health service is very tightly examined and very tightly controlled. What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that when I examined the control over health expenditure some years ago, as Chief Secretary, there was virtually no reasonable control over expenditure. It is necessary to have such control and I believe that it is right that we should have it.
    Mr. John Smith: Has the Prime Minister looked at the affairs of the National Health Service Supplies Authority? If there is control, why did it waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on changing a single word in its name—£5,500 for a new logo, £61,000 for artwork, £67,000 on publications, £40,000 to replace signs and £20,000 to repaint the vans? That is £200,000 of which not a penny was spent on patient care. What kind of control is that?
    The Prime Minister: Administrative costs in the health service are about 2 per cent. of total costs. There are very

    827
    few companies that could match that. There has been no time in our history when so many resources were devoted to patient care within the health service.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Prime Minister reluctant to condemn the example that I gave him because the chairman of the National Health Service Supplies Authority is Sir Robin Buchanan, a former Tory councillor and, until recently, the chairman of Wessex regional health authority, in which the grotesque mismanagement of public funds was exposed by the Public Accounts Committee?
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman utterly neglects to mention is the fact that there is more money in the health service and more patients are being treated in the health service than ever before. He may seek to throw sand in the eyes on other matters, but that is the reality of the health reforms and no sensible person would wish to reverse them.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept the view of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and of parliamentary delegations in Moscow monitoring the elections that the elections were full, free and fair? Will he make it clear that a Parliament or a Government, whether democratically elected or not, which show antagonism to Britain or the west, cannot expect to have economic aid poured in? Will he also make it clear that any move to annex nations that are now free and border on Commonwealth of Independent States countries must obtain the condemnation of the whole world?
    The Prime Minister: We have not yet received the formal report from the observers of the elections, but the preliminary indications are that the elections were conducted freely and fairly. I look forward to the official reports in due course. It is, of course, too soon to say what the Russian Parliament will look like. There are a lot of results on a first-past-the-post basis that still have to come in. We shall have to examine that and examine the implications for British policy thereafter. It is undoubted that both the United Kingdom and the international community have recognised the independence of countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. We have recognised that and we expect their sovereignty to be respected.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: As we have been talking about wasting public money, will the Prime Minister tell us why he spent £292,000 on decorating No. 10 Downing street and improving the catering facilities? We thought that he had an outside caterer. Does he think that it is obscene that he should be spending that amount of taxpayer's money when, within yards of Downing street, thousands of people are living in cardboard boxes and in shop doorways? Is not it rather strange that a simple Brixton boy has become the Imelda Marcos of Downing street?
    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman, as chairman of the Greater London council, used to arrive in the House of Commons in a
    828
    chauffeur-driven car, paid for by the ratepayers. I also seem to remember that that same south London boy blew ratepayers' money on a giant binge to celebrate the end of the GLC as well as on parties, fireworks and river trips. He even spent it on silver medallions for his GLC colleagues.
    The money that the hon. Gentleman referred to being spent on Downing street—a public building—was used largely to repair the kitchens and other parts of the public aspect of the building.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Riddick: With recent events in mind, does my right hon. Friend share my confidence that the Government will get their parliamentary business through this Session, bearing in mind the figures recently made public showing that out of the 200 Members with the best voting records, 191 were Conservatives and only six were Labour Members? Surely those figures show that the campaign of so-called non-co-operation is the hypocritical sham that we know it to be.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend understates the problem, as is his wont. Sham is precisely the right word. We know that the Labour party has broken off relations because it made a total mess of tabling an amendment on value added tax. It is now trying to hide the shambles that it made.
    The idea that the Government are not allowing enough time to discuss budgetary measures is total and absolute nonsense. The Budget debate was extended by a day this year, and what happened? Hardly any Opposition Members turned up for that debate. I am not remotely surprised that only six Members out of the 200 with good voting records are Labour Members.
    As for guillotines, I recall that five were introduced in a day by Mr, Michael Foot and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) voted for them.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister had time to read the excellent research conducated in America and Britain, which shows that the best and most cost-effective investment in education is that in nursery education? Will he prove the Daily Express right, for once, and commit his Government to providing nursery places for all three and four-year-olds? That would be a much better way of spending money than wasting it on Downing street, fripperies in the health service and paying off retired Cabinet Ministers.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may look, for example, at a Conservative education authority such as Wandsworth, which provides nursery education. He should also bear it in mind that, on other occasions, he and his colleagues have asked for diversity of choice to be given to education authorities about how they spend their money.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the progress towards fair and democratic

    829
    government in much of central and eastern Europe? Does he agree that NATO must continue to develop the links and resources to ensure that that progress is safeguarded?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The future of NATO and its role from here onwards is an important subject to be discussed at the NATO summit in mid-January.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is the Prime Minister aware that widespread concern will be felt throughout the country and particularly in Coventry about the £1 billion error which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted yesterday? Does that mean more cuts in benefit for low-income groups? Is the Prime Minister also aware of the concern felt by many about the breathtaking incompetence of the Government, as demonstrated by their admittance of that £1 billion error?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would do better to go back and read the evidence that was taken and then frame his question in a more accurate way.
    The reality of what the Chief Secretary said yesterday makes no difference in practice. All social security—
    830
    [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen would be wise to listen. The point about the £1 billion was not that it was in error, but simply that it was scored in the wrong place.
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
    Sir John Hannam: When my right hon. Friend was in Brussels at the weekend, did he have the opportunity of exchanging views with the other European leaders about the state of their economies, particularly the levels of inflation, interest rates and economic growth—all areas in which my right hon. Friend is leading the way?
    The Prime Minister: We had the opportunity of discussing the position across Europe. The fact is that, across Europe, the European Commission is forecasting a fall in GDP of around 0·5 per cent. In Germany, it is expected to fall by 2·25 per cent. in the current year and in France by 1 per cent. Industrial production is down in a number of countries. It is, of course, now rather different here: we have the lowest rates of interest in the Community; our inflation has been below the Community average for two years; unemployment is falling consistently in this country while it is rising elsewhere; and we have the fastest growth rate among European Community countries this year and by far the highest forecast for growth next year.

Local Government Finance (Wales)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): With your permission, Madam Speaker. I should like to make a statement on my proposals for local government finance in Wales for 1994–95. I have asked for the figures to be available in the Vote Office now for Members, and copies of this statement will be placed there at the end of my remarks.
I propose to set total standard spending at £2,704·8 million, an increase of 4·2 per cent. over 1993–94. Aggregate external finance will be at £2,419·2 million, an increase of 3·3 per cent. Both figures include care in the community.
Councils will receive revenue support grant of £1,740·1 million, business rates of £464 million and other revenue grants of £215·1 million. I am consulting local authorities on my proposals, and will advise the House of my final decision in the new year.
This settlement should be considered in the light of the low level of inflation—the latest retail prices increase is 1·4 per cent. and pay is rising by 1·5 per cent. in the public sector—and the Government's view that future pay increases should be met from savings arising from increased efficiency and improved performance.
My Department has today written to each local authority in Wales telling in its provisional standard spending assessment and provisional capping principles for 1994–95.
I hope that Welsh local authorities will budget wisely. It is important to ensure that local taxpayers are not faced with unreasonable bills. I therefore propose the following capping principles for 1994–95.
The first is that any increase of more than 1·75 per cent. over the 1993–94 budget requirement will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirements over the authority's SSA.
Secondly, any increase of more than 1·25 per cent. over the 1993–94 budget requirement will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 5 per cent. above the authority's SSA.
Thirdly, any increase of more than 0·75 per cent. over the 1993–94 budget requirement will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 10 per cent. above the authority's SSA.
Fourthly, any budget requirement more than 12·5 per cent. above the SSA will be considered excessive subject to certain conditions.
An authority that sets a budget at or below its SSA will not, of course, be capped. Of necessity, my capping principles are provisional. I will take account of all appropriate considerations in making my decisions. Final SSAs will be announced in the new year.
I have decided to issue £503 million of capital grants and credit approvals for 1994–95. That represents a 4 per cent. increase on the current year. Given the low level of inflation, it will permit a good level of local authority capital investment.
Basic credit approvals for 1994–95 will amount to nearly £189 million, a 9·6 per cent. increase on 1993–94. That will give authorities more scope to set their own priorities for capital spending to meet local needs.
I have increased provision for educational capital by nearly 12 per cent. to a total of £42·5 million. I have
832
increased provision for environmental and economic development by more than 39 per cent., to a total of £37·6 million. That, among other things, should help local authorities in finding their portion of the costs of European regional development fund-backed projects.
I have allocated £49·8 million for capital projects in the strategic development scheme. I will be announcing next week the local strategies and projects that I will approve under that figure.
I have increased housing provision modestly to £265·7 million. Mandatory home renovation grants go up from £145·6 million to £149·1 million and discretionary disabled facilities grants from £26·3 million to £27·9 million.
Total provision for transport amounts to £94 million. The transport grant settlement of £63 million will provide assistance for 30 schemes in total. It will enable county councils to start four major schemes: the third Dee Crossing, the Rhuddlan bypass, the second phase of the A4067 Swansea valley dualling, and the Bridgend cross valley link. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome those proposals.
I shall also provide support towards the preparation costs of four new schemes that have been conditionally accepted for transport grant: the Newport southern distributor road, the Porth and Lower Rhondda Fach relief road, the initial phase of the A485 Ceredigion link road, and the East Moors dualling of the peripheral distributor road in South Glamorgan.
I have placed full details of my proposed capping principles, provisional standard spending assessments, and credit approvals for capital spending in the Vote Office and the Library.
I shall provide over £144 million of revenue and more than £15·5 million of capital to the Further Education Funding Council. That is an increase of 11·2 per cent. over the current year. I shall also provide nearly £200 million of revenue funding and almost £23 million of capital funding for the Higher Education Funding Council.
That, in conjunction with the substantial increase in local authority educational capital, shows the Government's commitment to a higher quality educational system, and to teaching and training more students and working from better buildings. In addition, I shall provide an extra £6·6 million for people with disabilities to pay for a range of new projects next year, of which £6·3 million will be spent by local authorities.
Local government in Wales will also wish to welcome gross Housing for Wales expenditure of £121·3 million next year, ensuring that the Housing for Wales's core programme will provide 3,800 extra homes next year, compared with 3,650 this year. That is a welcome increase in the number of new and improved homes.
I intend to use the extra money for Wales in the general settlement to reinforce our priorities of better education and health care, to complete the crucial investments in the future of Wales and to assist its economic recovery. I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Ron Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, although there is nothing in it that will give any comfort to local government or to Wales.
Why is the Secretary of State so obsessed with maintaining secrecy about the details of the settlement? My hon. Friends may know—they may not be too disappointed when they do know—that the Secretary of

833
State has leaders of Welsh local government, who were told a couple of hours ago of the details of the statement, incarcerated in the Welsh Office in Cardiff. Why does the Secretary of State want to prevent hon. Members having before them the views and analyses of local government in their constituencies while he gives his report?
Why is the Secretary of State making such a mockery of the process of consultation that he is bound, by statute, to conduct? Nothing illustrates that better than his meeting dwith the county councils on 2 December to discuss the tier split. At 5 pm on that day, his Parliamentary Private Secretary undertook to give serious and detailed consideration to the case, and letters were delivered at 8·30 am the following morning, announcing that he had dismissed their representations. Why are such decisions taken before proper consultation is held?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is widespread dismay in local government at the further cuts in jobs and services that he is announcing today? Does he understand that that, coming on top of the wasteful and expensive reorganisation of local government that he is imposing—which no one in Wales wants—this will impose further burdens on council tax payers?
The Secretary of State is claiming an increase in spending. Why is he engaging in that sleight of hand when he is supposed to believe that cuts in public spending are good for Britain and the economy? Excluding care in the community, the SSA increase is nearly 1 per cent. below this year's actual budget and will inevitably mean further job losses. Does he realise that last year's settlement, which his predecessor hailed as "generous", resulted in 2,500 job losses in Wales, more than 2,000 of which were among teachers, lecturers and others involved in education?
If the Government's message is "back to basics", how will education be improved when school transport is cut, education welfare officers sacked and teachers made redundant? How will "back to basics" be achieved when the South Wales police authority cannot manage to police royal visits, and when chief constables are queuing up to tell the Secretary of State that they cannot do their job properly within the resources allowed?
The new capping criteria are arbitrary and complex, and designed to choke off local initiatives and flexibility. Was it the Secretary of State's wish that Wales should be brought into line with England, or did he succumb to Treasury pressure? Because the increase in external finance is less than the increase in spending, will that not mean a minimum increase of 15 per cent. for council tax payers in Wales?
Has the Secretary of State heard from local authorities in Wales that provision of care in the community is in a state of crisis due to a chronic lack of underfunding? [Interruption.] The £86 million quoted by the Secretary of State includes £37 million already promised. The new money for next year, £48 million, is only half of the amount estimated by local authorities to be the minimum requirement. That is on top of this year's underfunding of £20 million.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, since his predecessor's statement a year ago, Shelter Cymru estimates that homelessness in Wales has gone up by 10 per cent.? The Parliamentary Secretary may share a joke with the Secretary of State for Wales about this matter, but
834
I do not think that the increasing numbers of people who wander aimlessly on the streets of Wales because they are suffering from mental illness is anything to joke about.
After the massive cuts of last year, capital spending has been savaged yet again. Despite the Secretary of State's sleight of hand, capital expenditure by local authorities is down from £620 million last year to £503 million, a cut of 15 per cent. That will mean a loss of jobs, services and opportunities. The Government's policies are worlds away from their rhetoric.
We were promised quality in public services; the reality is savage cuts. We were promised a commitment to stability and economic growth; the statement will cost jobs. We were promised an open and democratic system of government; this system continues the process whereby more than £1 billion of public money will be transferred from democratic local government to undemocratic quangos.
The Secretary of State is widening the gulf between the people of Wales and the Government, and he and his colleagues will ultimately pay a heavy price for their failures.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) would have been the first to complain if I had given the statement to others outside before extending the courtesy of telling the House. That is why, as is traditional, leaders of local government were invited to the Welsh Office to read the statement, but not to broadcast it before hon. Members had heard it from my own lips in the House. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that point. He and his hon. Friends always want to hear the news first, which is reasonable in a parliamentary democracy.
Of course I am now engaged in consultation on the proposals, as I have explained. There will be time aplenty for local authorities to consider them, and to give me the benefit of their views in writing over the next few weeks following my statement.
The hon. Gentleman sides with the counties on the tier split. Is he aware that the districts are very much in favour of the system that was hammered out between county and district over many years, and want it to continue this year? Perhaps he would like to explain to all the Labour leaders of districts in Wales why he is campaigning against them for the partial county view of the tier split.
As the split works out this year, it does not switch much money from country to district. I think it a fair settlement. I have chaired two meetings in which I have tried to establish a common view between counties and districts, but they were unable to reach such a view. We have therefore decided to continue with the original system that was agreed between them in previous years.
The hon. Gentleman says, wrongly, that no one wants our reorganisation. I suggest that he tell that to his friends in the Labour party in the big towns and cities, and in the historic Welsh shires, which are very keen for self-government and unitary status to be granted to them.
The hon. Gentleman juggles with figures that he little understands, and says misleading things. The truth is that the Welsh Office budget is up £320 million next year compared with this year; the truth is that total standard spending for local authorities—a big figure—is up by £100 million. Against a background of very low inflation and better control of public-sector pay than for many a long year, I consider that a good settlement. Well-run local

835
authorities will be able to deliver the goods and improve their services, and will not need to sack people, because they will have the money to do the job.
The hon. Gentleman criticises education authorities, and says that they will deliberately savage the services they offer, because he thinks that they will be unable to manage. I have more confidence in those authorities than does the hon. Gentleman; I believe that they can manage with the money that I am proposing to Parliament, and that, if they get their priorities right, they can raise standards in the way we want, and balance the books.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the minimum increase in council tax will be 15 per cent. as a result of the settlement. That is simply untrue; I am sure that some local authorities in Wales will manage to deliver a good range of services without terrifying the taxpayers to that extent. Just in case there are any problems, however, I have the provisional capping in mind, lest authorities overspend and do their budgeting badly.
The hon. Gentleman went on to criticise what he described as a "chronic lack of underfunding" in care in the community. I think that that was why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was amused. I assume that the hon. Gentleman miscued his phrase.
If he meant that he was worried about a chronic lack of funding, I rebut his allegation very strongly. A large sum—£86 million—has been allowed for care in the community. I am very pleased with the way in which most local authorities are tackling the issue of care in the community in Wales: I see much good work as I go around the country. They will have extra money next year with which to get on with the job, and I wish them every success.
As for housing, the hon. Gentleman should read the statement again. As a result of today's announcement, 3,800 extra and improved houses are to be provided next year, on top of what the local authorities will be doing. I believe that that is a manful way of tackling the task, and I commend the proposals to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must keep in mind the business before the House, and strike a balance. I hope that hon. Members will co-operate by asking brisk questions, which produce brisk answers, so that I can do my best to call all who wish to be called.
Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Rhuddlan will be dancing in the streets following his announcement that the town is to have a bypass? That bypass will not only relieve traffic congestion in the town itself and ease access to Glan Clwyd hospital, but facilitate the excellent work being done to develop Rhyl further as a tourist resort.
Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that my hon. Friend welcomes the news.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will be aware that those with mortgages have benefited substantially in the recent past as a result of interest rate reductions. Is it fair for those who must pay council rents to expect a rent increase of some 7·5 per cent. as a result of the reduction in Government subsidy?
Mr. Redwood: Those who are in need and on low incomes will be taken care of through the benefits system. We believe that others should pay a realistic rent for their housing.
Mr. Roger Evans: My right hon. Friend referred to £86 million being provided for community care in Wales next year. How much of an increase is that?
Mr. Redwood: From memory, it is £38 million this year, and it will be £86 million next year as the range of services increases.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State appreciate that, after listening to him, I was left with the thought that the old concept of local government had become almost meaningless? Is it not all about the diktat of central Government allied to quangos? Is it not time that we got back to the old principle of local power, local autonomy and local decision-making?
Mr. Redwood: Today's announcement grants permission for £2,700 million to be spent by local authorities, which gives them enormous choice and control over cash and people and other resources. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. It dwarfs the resources going through most of the non-departmental bodies under the Welsh Office, and rightly so, because it means that local people have a direct interest in making decisions and spending money on behalf of their local communities. Ninety per cent. of the money comes from central Government sources, but is given, in the main, in a block grant to maximise that local choice.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the formula that is used for the division of the increased resources that he has announced for local government will be according to the formula that was set by the local authorities in co-operation, as has traditionally been the case?
Has my right hon. Friend reached a conclusion regarding Housing for Wales's expenditure in relation to the grant rate? He will be aware of the concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House about a potential reduction in the amount of public finance and an increase in the amount of private finance that housing associations will have to find. Has my right hon. Friend reached a conclusion on that issue?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is an agreed formula—something that I welcome and that England would be well advised to follow, judging from the Welsh experience. We are proposing a grant rate of 62 per cent. I believe that we can build more from the public moneys available because, now that the market is improving and the private finances are a little more confident, we can expect them to make a proportionately larger contribution.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State recall the bizarre incident in the past year on the day of the local government elections, when the previous Secretary of State threatened to take Gwent county council to court because of its Budget? As a result, enormous expense was incurred by the county council, a great deal of energy was expended and, afterwards, the Welsh Office withdrew its threat.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that Gwent county council will be compensated for any cost

837
that it suffered because of that, and also that Newport borough council will be compensated for the decision to impose costs on it because of its Browning Ferris decision? Will he give an undertaking that the Welsh Office will not engage in more crude, futile, political stunts?
Mr. Redwood: It was not a political stunt. The case was well judged by the Welsh Office. Unfortunately, the courts were not able to resolve it in a sensible time for the current budgetary year, which was the only reason why I agreed to its withdrawal. Were the county council to budget next year in a way in which we thought was wrong, of course we would wish to take action.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State assure us that, in no part of Wales, anyone who is entitled to a house renovation grant—disabled people especially—will be refused because of lack of resources? Will he say which roads scheme will help Trawsfynydd area in the wake of the rundown of the nuclear power station?
Mr. Redwood: Local authority roads are a matter for the priorities of local authority, and the hon. Gentleman should talk to them about that matter. I have made an increase in the money available for house renovation, especially for those who are disabled. That will represent a welcome extension in the number receiving the benefit, which he and I would like to see them get. I cannot make an absolute promise, because I do not know yet entirely how the pattern of demand will work out. My intention is that we should meet that demand as best we can, and I have therefore increased the amount of money to do so.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State twice regurgitated the figure for housing starts, saying that it was increasing from 3,600 to 3,800 for the whole of Wales. Why does he not put it in context and accept that there are more people on the housing lists in the Rhondda than the number of starts that he is approving today?
Mr. Redwood: I am pleased, as is the hon. Gentleman, that many people on the housing list are currently housed and are seeking better accommodation, which will mean changing accommodation. It does not mean that we need to build the number of houses to equal the number of people on all the housing waiting lists in Wales. I believe that this programme, coupled with private sector programmes and other initiatives, will be a sizeable improvement in the position, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: In the name of care in the community, Mid Glamorgan area health authority is closing down wards and is proposing to shut down Mardy hospital in Merthyr Tydfil. At the same time, everybody in the community knows that the care is not there, particularly for the elderly.
Since it is mostly the elderly in our communities who tend to take care of the elderly, will the Secretary of State take a good look at this again and discover what is going on? The majority of people do not feel that there is a care in the community system that is capable of meeting the needs, especially given the loss of vital hospital beds, particularly respite beds for the elderly.
Mr. Redwood: I share with the hon. Gentleman the wish that Merthyr hospital should be better run, and we have changed the management comparatively recently to
838
try to achieve that aim. Care in the community is a local Government policy, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with his local authority to obtain the best value for the substantial increases in money that I have announced today and which I will be making available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the important road scheme for his area.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Secretary of State admit that an increase in standing spending assessment in Taff Ely of a mere £342,000 in the coming year will pay for, at the most, 20 house improvement grants when there are thousands of people in that borough seeking more suitable and better accommodation, including many disabled people who cannot even have the money to allow them to take wheelchairs into the toilet? Why will the Secretary of State continue to condemn such people to that sort of life when he has an opportunity to make their lives much better?
Mr. Redwood: That is a bit rich when I announced a special £6·6 million package for the disabled on top of the general support grant that has been announed. The hon. Gentleman's local authority will receive a 2·4 per cent. increase in its SSA under these proposals, which is well ahead of inflation and pay increases.
Mr. David Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that record amounts of money have been spent in Wales? Does not that prove that we are the party of hot money and that lot over there are the party of hot air?
Mr. Redwood: I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend to Welsh questions. I can assure the House that he and I had not colluded on that question, but I agree with its sentiments entirely.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Secretary of State admit that he has delivered his usual diet of slippery statistics and smooth talk? The fact is that, yet again, there will be a reduction in the budget of West Glamorgan county, which will hit, for example, students seeking discretionary awards. Why does he not have any compassion for the skilled young people who want to do better with their lives by obtaining student places, but who are unable to do so because of the cuts that he has confirmed today?
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not studied the figures. The total SSA for West Glamorgan will be up 5·2 per cent. on the basis that I have outlined. I have announced today major increases in higher and further education budgets and in capital for education through local authorities, because I am serious about improving educational standards, and it will not be for lack of money that we do not succeed.
Mr. Barry Jones: The River Dee crossing announcement will be welcomed. It is a £60 million scheme, which will provide hundreds of jobs for local unemployed construction workers. Will it be complete by 1997, bearing in mind the distress and traffic jams that have been created because of the 10-year delay in its construction? Now that the Secretary of State has done the decent and honourable thing for Deeside, will he bear in mind the fact that we do not need the massive improvement in the road section at Aston Hill?
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for the advice on the hon. Gentleman's third point. On his first question, I am advised that it is a £55 million scheme. The answer to his second question will in part depend on the local authority's decisions on phasing.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although he has announced an apparent increase in capital expenditure for all county councils, compared with two years ago it still represents a significant cut? For instance, two years ago Dyfed county council received a basic credit approval of more than £13 million, and the Secretary of State has just announced that it is £11·2 million. Does he recognise that that is a massive cut in two years, which prevents county councils throughout Wales from improving and building the new schools and other properties that are required, particularly for community care?
Mr. Redwood: It is an increase on the current year, and it is given in a way that increases local discretion to choose schemes.
Mr. Llew Smith: How many people in Wales are homeless, and how many additional houses will be built as a result of the statement?
Mr. Redwood: I do not know how many people are homeless. That is not the same statistic as the one that hon. Members often trot out. It is important not to confuse homelessness, when people have no roof over their heads, with unsatisfactory housing, when people would like to change the house or flat in which they live. There is often confusion on that point.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for the additional £6 million-plus for the disabled and the almost 6 per cent. increase in the disabled facilities grant under the housing budget. But despite that increase,
840
on the evidence of my borough of Ogwr, those increases will not be sufficient. Once he has given that money to the local authorities, will he carry out a survey to find out how many people are waiting for disabled facilities to be provided in their homes? That rmains a scandal.
Mr. Redwood: I took advice before choosing the amount of money, and the amount I chose was based on advice about what could be spent on decent schemes. If evidence comes to light in the next few months that more could be spent on good schemes for the disabled, I shall look again at that figure. In the meantime, however, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. I intend to do well by the disabled; that is the purpose of the £6·6 million.
Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State admit that it is shameful that he is unaware that there are 10,000 homeless people and at least 80,000 people waiting for council houses in Wales? The settlement will do absolutely nothing to improve their position. Will he admit that the people of Wales see no sense in cutting services that are essential to the quality of their lives while he is preparing to spend millions of pounds on a so-called reform of local government that no one in Wales wants?
Mr. Redwood: The reform of local government will not incur heavy expenditure in the ensuing year that we are discussing. The aim will be to produce savings if there are transitional costs. The main cost would be shedding people, which would lead to revenue savings if councils chose to do that when we reach that stage.
On the homeless, the hon. Gentleman falls into exactly the same trap as I outlined in an earlier reply. The 10,000 people will not be without a roof over their heads tonight. They would like, and many of them need, better housing. The number of people without a roof is tiny, and my hon. Friends and I are attempting to tackle that problem, because it is unacceptable.

Sir Robin Buchanan
4.3 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions, the Leader of the Opposition attacked Sir Robin Buchanan in his capacity as chairman of the Wessex health authority. Those of us whose constituencies are within the Wessex regional health authority area know that there was a scandal involving the Wessex—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing Member of the House, but I cannot allow Question Time to be prolonged in this way. If he has a point of order that I can deal with, I shall try my best to do so. Will he raise a point of order that concerns me as Speaker?
Mr. Viggers: This is a fair point of order, Madam Speaker.
An attack was made on Sir Robin Buchanan, and those of us in the Wessex regional health authority area know him to be one who has given distinguished public service. I should like the record to show—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is attempting to prolong questions and to debate the matter. It is not a point of order for me as Speaker.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill and Social Security (Contributions) Bill

  (Allocation of Time)
  4.4 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 proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill:
  Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Statutory Sick Pay Bill
  1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill shall be completed at the sitting on 15th December.
  (2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement, and the proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading.
  (3) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
  (4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
  (5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
  Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Social Security

  (Allocation of Time)

    (Contributions)Bill
    2.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Social Security (Contributions) Bill shall be completed at the sitting on 16th December.
    (2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement, and the proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading.
    (3) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
    (4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
    (5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.

    Conclusion of proceedings
    3.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on either Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2.
    (2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Speaker or Chairman 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;

    (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

    843

    (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

    (3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    (4) If on 15th or 16th December 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 and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

    (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and

    (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings 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.

    4. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
    Dilatory Motions
    5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on either Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    Extra Time
    6. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill at the sitting on 15th December and to proceedings on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill at the sitting on 16th December.

    Supplemental orders
    7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
    (2) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or if any sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings 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 Minister of the crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order.

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

    Recommittal
    9.—(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 either Bill to which this Order applies (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.
    Before discussing the two Bills and the reason for proposing the motion, I should first describe, simply and clearly, what it provides for, since there was some doubt about that last night—although I accept that those who expressed that doubt had not then had the opportunity to study the motion.
    For each Bill, the motion provides for six hours of debate, divided between three hours on Second Reading and three hours for remaining stages. Overall, therefore, each Bill has broadly the equivalent of a full normal parliamentary day.
    Additionally, although this is not in the motion, we have separately provided time for the money resolution required for the SSP Bill—last night—and for the Ways and Means resolution required for the contributions Bill, which is
    844
    down for discussion on Wednesday evening. That has the effect both of avoiding procedural confusion after Second Reading and of providing additional time for discussion of matters arising from the two Bills.
    Although I of course accept that the context is one that the Opposition do not like, to put it mildly, we sought to ease the problems that the House would otherwise have faced in relation to amendments by means of a motion—somewhat unexpectedly debated, but, I am happy to say, agreed to without dissent, on Friday—to allow the tabling of amendments to either or both in advance of Second Reading.
    The content and the purpose of the two Bills will be dealt with more fully by my right hon. Friends when they speak on Second Reading. I shall therefore confine myself to a brief outline.
    The principal purpose of the contributions Bill is contained in clause 1, which increases national insurance contributions payable by employees by 1 per cent. from April 1994. That proposal was originally made in the Budget presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) in March; but clearly the revenue involved, about £1·9 billion, is an important ingredient in the more recent Budget judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). It ensures for the forthcoming year the financial soundness of the national insurance fund, from which all state retirement pensions and many other benefits are paid.
    This is overwhelmingly the main point of the Bill. The other two clauses, apart from commencement provisions and the like, are simply designed to establish with greater certainty two points which already represent the general understanding and which have not been challenged—yet some doubt about them has arisen.
    Clause 2 establishes that certainty in respect of the allocations made to the NHS from the national insurance fund—nothing new about those allocations—and clause 3 establishes with certainty that, just as payments towards personal pensions are not allowed as a deduction by employees from their income on which class 1 contributions are calculated, they are not allowed either as a deduction by the self-employed from the profits on which class 4 contributions are calculated. In both cases, these provisions do no more than establish more firmly what has always been intended and understood.
    The second Bill is the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. Here, the main purpose is to implement one of the key expenditure proposals of the Budget—the abolition of the arrangements under which 80 per cent. of the cost of statutory sick pay is reimbursed to employers. This is part of a package, the other elements of which do not require legislation but will be implemented in other ways.
    The package will include a major reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, will extend and improve the 100 per cent. reimbursement arrangements for small employers after a period, and will bring about overall a net reduction of about £100 million in the costs of British industry, even after allowing for the SSP changes.
    No employee's entitlement is in any way reduced. Indeed, as a result of another element in the package, the abolition of the lower rate of SSP in April 1995, about 50,000 less well paid people will gain increased entitlements to SSP. From April 1995, they will receive it at the higher rate, which will then be the only rate.
    The Bill also contains one other provision of limited but beneficial effect; it extends statutory sick pay entitlement to women who work past the age of 60, the age at which their entitlement currently ceases. It will now be available to them until they are 65, thus bringing about a modest but useful extension of equal treatment and, indeed, entailing additional spending of about £10 million.
    Against that background, let me make five key points to the House. First, the two Bills represent two important elements in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, involving on the one hand significant amounts of revenue and, on the other, significant amounts of expenditure. They are therefore important elements in a policy—which is overwhelmingly supported, I think, by Conservative Members, if not by the Opposition—to improve public finances and to ensure that the recovery now taking place continues and is sustained. The Bills need now to be put in place in a sensible and orderly way.
    Secondly, the Bills are not long and complicated. Although related to wider and more complex changes, some of which I touched on, essentially they are directed to two clear and straightforward, although not uncontroversial, propositions. The first is that employees' contributions should go up by 1 per cent.; the second is that 80 per cent. refunds of SSP should be ended.
    As I have observed once or twice before, there has already been much opportunity to debate those propositions. Taking account of two Budget debates and a Queen's Speech debate, which covered the contributions Bill, the contributions proposals could have been debated for a total of 15 days. I accept that less time has been available to debate SSP, but we have just had a substantial Budget debate, which was extended by one day at the request of the Opposition specifically to embrace the fact that public expenditure was involved. The SSP proposal is a public expenditure proposal in the Budget, for which the debate was extended by a day.
    Thirdly, the two Bills are tied closely together. It would plainly not be sensible to try to carry out the rest of the annual uprating of national insurance contributions in April with a large element of it legally unsettled. Equally plainly, it would not be sensible to make the SSP change without at the same time making the national insurance changes that go with it. They need to be dealt with alongside each other.
    Fourthly, I accept that it is not impossible for such changes to be carried out at times other than April, but it is overwhelmingly for the convenience of business to make them, along with all the other changes in payroll systems and the like that occur at this time, at the beginning of the financial year in April.
    Fifthly, and crucially, to achieve that, and to make those necessary changes in a way that does not cause unnecessary cost and inconvenience to industry, the House needs to carry the Bills before the forthcoming recess. I can perhaps best show that by working back from the intended date of implementation—6 April.
    To meet that date, the Department of Social Security, the Contributions Agency and other parts of the DSS need to issue the necessary contributions tables and other instructions to some 1·2 million employers in February. Affirmative orders must be laid beforehand in early February, with proper time for consideration by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by both Houses. There will be several further opportunities for debate on the detail of the measures.
    Mr. Peter Hain: When was a similar Bill last guillotined in this way?
    Mr. Newton: The nearest comparison that I can make is with the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill two or three years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Before Second Reading?"] Yes, before Second Reading; I think that is right.
    In another respect, we face entirely new circumstances this year. It is the first unified Budget for a considerable time. [Interruption.] The unification of the Budget has been widely supported on both sides of the House. It took place on 30 November and included expenditure proposals alongside tax proposals, which require primary legislation but which do not have the same special procedures that tax legislation requires. That has therefore made it necessary to act in the way that I am seeking to persuade the House to accept.
    Mr. John Hutton: On what previous occasions at this stage of the parliamentary Session—only four weeks into it—have two important Bills of such magnitude been subjected to a guillotine motion? It is common to guillotine Bills at the back end of a Session, but not at this stage. On what previous occasion has such a guillotine motion been proposed?
    Mr. Newton: I had just completed my argument to answer that question. The sort of question that the hon. Gentleman has just asked me might make more sense if we were talking about an education Bill or others that I can think of, but it is not relevant to today's circumstances.
    The two proposals are an integral part of the Budget announced on 30 November, with which a range of measures was needed to ensure that the proposals could be carried through coherently by 6 April. I am stating the procedures required of the House of Commons and the other place to enable that process to be carried out in a way that allows British industry to implement the proposals in a sensible and convenient way.
    Mr. John Denham: Does the Leader of the House anticipate that it will become an annual event for measures arising from the Budget that have to be passed by April? If not, what does he intend to do in future years?
    Mr. Newton: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an entirely serious reply, as I have sought to do with previous questions. As I have said on a number of occasions—not least when occasionally responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, as well as to questions from other parts of the House—in the wake of our experience with the unified Budget procedures this year, we shall need to consider whether there are further lessons to be drawn.
    Some of those lessons could not have become apparent until we had undergone that experience. It may well be that the problem that could arise in relation to expenditure proposals flowing from the Budget, and in the time scale that we are talking about, could require further thinking. That additional consideration would not necessarily be on the same long established lines for dealing with tax proposals, such as the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, but could require further thought on how such matters could be most appropriately handled.
    Mr. Derek Enright: Is it not true that, as a result of moving things too quickly, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—God bless him—has had to admit to a £1 billion error which, had he been more careful and examined the expenditure in more detail, could have been uncovered? Will not a similar error be made now if we do not look at the Bill properly?
    Mr. Newton: First, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman, who assiduously attends our proceedings, will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the story on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based. Secondly, I do not accept that there is a parallel with the proceedings on which I am encouraging the House to embark.
    A range of affirmative and negative orders—I am concentrating on the affirmative ones—will need to be laid in early February, allowing proper time for consideration by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and a proper opportunity for debate by both Houses. We shall seek to provide that. Before that process, which must start in early February, the other place must deal with the two Bills after Parliament resumes in mid-January. If people think fairly and objectively about that, they will see that there is a need for the House to proceed with the measures this week, which is the reason for the motion.
    From recollection, I believe that it has been customary to conclude such speeches with what is sometimes called knockabout, with references to the number of guillotines moved by one's predecessors of different political persuasions. I could make a number of such references, but I think that the case that I have made is clear and compelling and will command the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am content to rest my case on that, and to commend the motion to the House.
    4.19 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Today's debate is a classic example of the warning contained in "Erskine May" about guillotining motions. They are a potential risk to democracy because they are capable of being used
    "in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business"—
    that is, the business of this place—
    "and the rights of debate."
    During the 20 years since I was elected to the House, I cannot recall a better example of the relevance of that warning. We are discussing the guillotining of two Bills that will affect every member of the British work force and every British company. One Bill will penalise all members of the British work force because it will increae the tax take from their salaries, while the other Bill will penalise—or so it would appear—all British companies because it will increase their costs and the bureaucracy that they face.
    We are having a debate on a guillotine motion because the Government do not want to talk about the issues; they simply want to use their parliamentary majority to get them out of the way.
    Ms Joan Walley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only today I had a letter from the PMT bus company in Stoke-on-Trent clearly stating that, as a result of the Government's proposals, it is likely that there will be an increase in bus fares? Surely we should have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bills properly, rather than pushing each through in one day.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is precisely the purpose of scrutiny of legislation that such points should emerge from people outside this place. Parliament exists to scrutinise legislation; that is why we are here. In particular, this place exists and our greatest duties—for hon. Members on both sides of the House—stem directly from the need to scrutinise the tax raising and expenditure of Government. It is extraordinary that any Government should suggest curtailing scrutiny in the way that is proposed today. Not only are we asked to guillotine two Bills in one day, but each will have only one day's debate in this place.
    The first of the Bills raises national insurance contributions for every working person by 1 per cent. That will raise £2 billion—two thousand million pounds—every penny out of the pay packets of the British work force. It actually raises £300 million a year more than a penny increase in income tax would have raised. No one could argue that those are not substantial sums or that they are not of considerable importance.
    The second Bill—the Statutory Sick Pay Bill—transfers the administration of SSP from the Government to private industry. That transfer will mean savings for the Government of £750 million—again, a substantial sum. The Government claim that employers will be fully compensated for that transfer by the cuts being made elsewhere in national insurance contributions. That is part of the Government's case for curtailing debate.
    Frankly, the House should doubt whether that is the case—as does British business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) identified. I shall come a little later to the reasons why that doubt is considerable—reasons based on the proposals being put before the House, rather than simply on the straightforward presumption that a Government who are behaving in such a hole-in-the-corner way are a Government with something to hide, as appears to be the case.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is not it one of the ironies of such an extraordinary piece of arrogant behaviour that the Government have succeeded in highlighting the very facts that they would rather the electorate did not know about?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. She is entirely right. Speaking as someone who, in common with others in the Chamber, has spent some five years trying to get the public to take an interest in social security matters, often of immense importance to them, I certainly take the view that, if it had not been for the Government's incompetence as well as their disregard of the proceedings of the House, people would be much less aware of what is going on.
    Usually, when we have debates because the Government have chosen to guillotine our proceedings, the Lord President spends much time claiming that time is being wasted in Committee and that great discussion has already been undertaken. He sought to claim credit today for his forbearance but, of course, he cannot make that claim today because we have not had a minute of debate on this legislation. Last week, he fell back on the claim that, with regard to the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, the increase was announced in the Budget a year ago, so there was no need to debate the detail.
    That, in itself, is a dubious claim. First, the Bill contains somewhat minor and technical provisions with regard to

    849
    the health service and personal pensions, to which the Lord President drew attention, but those clauses are there because preceeding legislation is either wrong or unclear. We scrutinise legislation so that, irrespective of what the Government intend, they can get the legislation right.
    Secondly, as anyone who is suffering from the ministrations of the Child Support Agency can tell the Government, the devil is often in the detail. All hon. Members approve of the idea that people should contribute towards the upkeep of their children; very few people approve of the way that it is being done. That again, I repeat, is what this place is for, irrespective of the party that hon. Members represent.
    Ms Walley: We are now having to sort out many issues simply because the Government have failed to get legislation right in the first place. My right hon. Friend has just mentioned specific legislation. Will she also bear in mind the way in which the Government have completely failed properly to scrutinise the European directive on the transfer of undertakings? Shall we not end up in exactly the same position with the legislation that we are about to scrutinise simply because the Government are not prepared to get it right and are not prepared to bring it to the House for proper scrutiny?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is again entirely right.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does not the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) underline the need for the House to spend time scrutinising European legislation rather than debating humdrum bits of legislation that have the broad support of the House? Was not the European directive on the transfer of undertakings brought forward under the previous Labour Government? If we had a system for the proper scrutiny of draft European legislation, would not we be able to deal with the problem raised by the hon. Lady? Do not we need to spend more time scrutinising the vast quantity of European legislation and less time talking up bogus divisions between the two sides of the House in order to conceal the ever-encroaching nature of the EC?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He can be assured that his words will go clown in history, at least on the Opposition Benches, and he can expect to have frequently quoted back at him, and frequently quoted back at his right hon. and hon. Friends, his words about humdrum legislation, which merely affects every member of the British work force and takes money out of their pay packets. That was a most revealing observation. The hon. Gentleman has clearly betrayed the fact that an increasing number of Conservative Members have no idea that this place is for the scrutiny of legislation of all kinds.
    This place exists not only for us to have an opportunity to ask our questions and to probe; as my hon. Friend has made clear, it is for those outside this place who will be affected by the legislation, those members of the British work force and every British company that will be affected by the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. It exists so that they can scrutinise the legislation, ask their questions and perhaps, if they are extraordinarily lucky, even have them answered. It is not only our freedoms that are being curtailed by this procedure; their right as citizens to know that Parliament has examined legislation which will so seriously affect them is also being curtailed.
    Mr. James Paice: A few minutes ago, the right hon. Lady called the Child Support Agency in her aid. She was right to think that many Conservative Members are just as worried as she is about some of the ways in which the policy has turned into reality. Does she accept that the legislation to set up the Child Support Agency was not guillotined, which demonstrates that a guillotine does not necessarily prevent scrutiny? Even without a guillotine, we do not necessarily get it right.
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I am not sure that it will work out in the way that he intended. Certainly, even with the scrutiny that is available, Parliament sometimes overlooks things or fails to get sufficient straight answers from the Government. How much worse, therefore, is it likely to be when we are allowed such a minuscule amount of time?
    Furthermore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to stay for the rest of this part of the debate. I assure him that I shall be able to point out to him something that Parliament has already missed in the proposals.
    Mr. James Clappison: If the matter is so strikingly in need of scrutiny, can the right hon. Lady enlighten us as to why the Leader of the Opposition made no mention of it in his response to the Budget and gave it no scrutiny?
    Mrs. Beckett: It is essential in the reply to a Budget speech to deal with the broad sweep of the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned some of these issues.
    Mr. Clappison: Did he mention statutory sick pay?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. If he would like to stay to hear a little more of my speech, he will find out one of the difficulties that lie behind the statutory sick pay proposal and one of the reasons why the guillotine motion is before the House today.
    The Lord President justified the guillotine on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill by advancing the notion that, as the proposal has been around for a year, there was no need to scrutinise it. That is the complete opposite of the position on statutory sick pay. That proposal has been around only since 30 November. No one has had time to scrutinise it. What is more, as I have already said, the way in which it was described was seriously misleading. The Government have claimed that there is nothing untoward or almost nothing unusual about their method of proceeding.
    Mr. Donald Dewar: Humdrum.
    Mrs. Beckett: Humdrum, as my hon. Friend says.
    There is only one precedent that we have been able to discover—the Lord President also identified it—of a Bill being guillotined before it had even received Second Reading. That precedent is instructive. The precedent is the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. It has similarities with the Bill that we are debating today in that the Government clearly were not anxious to spend much time debating the issue. The Bill dealt with the most embarrassing policy, up to now, that the Government have pursued in their years in office—the policy of the poll tax. The Government wanted to spend as little time as possible

    851
    dwelling on the impact of the poll tax. That is the similarity with the guillotine that we are discussing. That is where the similarity ends.
    The Act followed hot on the heels of a Budget in which the Conservative party increased VAT to 17·5 per cent. It was, in fact, the counterbalance to the cut in poll tax of £140, paid for by an increase to 17·5 per cent. in VAT. The Budget statement in which VAT was increased was made on 19 March. The Bill was produced on 26 March and debated in one day. We opposed the guillotining of that Bill because we thought that it was not the right way in which to dispose of such vast sums of money. We were right to recognise the dangers of that precedent. At least that Bill was the means whereby the Chancellor put back into people's pockets the money that he had taken out a few days before in the Budget.
    There is no such excuse for the provisions that we are discussing today. They are a straightforward increase in deductions from people's take-home pay made in direct contravention of what was promised by the Conservative party and the Prime Minister before the general election campaign.
    Let me remind the Lord President that one reason why the Social Security (Contributions) Bill is before us is that a change of this magnitude in the Government's tax-raising powers requires primary legislation. I have no doubt whatever that if the change did not require primary legislation, the Government would scuttle the matter through in whatever hole and corner way they could find. The remark of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that some of the legislation is humdrum confirms that view. The Government cannot get out of presenting the legislation to the House, but they have chosen to allow it to be debated as briefly as possible, allowing the princely total of less than six hours' debate for all stages of the Bill before it goes to another place.
    I shall now deal with statutory sick pay. The Lord President's argument on the Statutory Sick Pay falls on the fact that we have known about it for less than two weeks. When the Government curtailed the previous arrangement on statutory sick pay of 100 per cent. reimbursement by reducing it to 80 per cent., the Lord President said:
    "It is entirely proper that we should come to the House with primary legislation to effect that change …that is the…legislation that we are debating."—[Official Report, 28 November, 1990; Vol. 181, c. 917.]
    The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the change was so significant that it had to be scrutinised properly. But that was a less sweeping step than the one in the Bill: it simply reduced the reimbursement from 100 to 80 per cent.
    At the time, we were suspicious of the Government's further intentions and in debate we drew attention to that concern. Anxiety about the Government's intentions runs through the history of statutory sick pay. When it was introduced, the Government said that it would apply for periods of only six weeks and that it would be wrong to go further because of the danger of putting burdens on British business. Within a year they had gone further by increasing the period over which it applied from six weeks to six months.
    That, too, was a less sweeping change than the one in the Bill. Not only was that legislation referred to by the
    852
    Leader of the House in the way that I described but, despite being of lesser purport, it was discussed for more than 50 hours in the Chamber and in Committee.
    On 1 March, the permanent secretary to the Department appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. There was again some suspicion about the Government's motive. No doubt some Conservative Members will think that it was unworthy. The permanent secretary was asked whether the Government had any plans to go ahead with further reductions and further burdens on British business. He replied:
    "No, there are no plans by Ministers at the moment to do that. Obviously, that is something they keep under review."
    He was further pressed by the Committee and said:
    "What you expect or what you do not expect is something you must deduce. We keep it under review."
    In line with a recent television programme, he should have said, "You might think that; I could not possibly comment."
    The Government claim that the change is of no importance because there will be no losers. That is their basic argument about curtailing the debate and, plainly, it has been swallowed by some of their Back Benchers. They say that, because there will be no losers, the Bill can go ahead without full scrutiny.
    Plainly, that argument is not accepted by the Institute of Directors, which is normally a friend of the Government. At the weekend, the institute suggested that the proposals would have a damaging effect on British business. It is not accepted by the Confederation of British Industry which, in the short time available, has written to hon. Members expressing concern about the principle of the changes which, it says,
    "poses fundamental questions about who should bear the cost of social security provision".
    The CBI note says that it hopes that those questions will be explored—in the debates that the Government are now curtailing. It also says that, because of the overall Budget package and the Chancellor's reassurance, it does not necessarily wish to oppose the Bill, although it seeks various assurances from the Government.
    I wonder whether the CBI is right about being reassured. Of course, this is exactly the kind of issue that it is right and proper to explore in Committee. That is the purpose of a Committee, but it appears that, at least in some respects, the Chancellor may have been economical with the truth in his reassurance in the Budget speech to which the CBI refers. The Government say that large companies will be compensated for the change by the reduction in national insurance contributions that will occur in other ways.
    Later in the Budget speech, the Chancellor said:
    "for well managed companies with low sickness rates, there will be a net reduction in the cost of employing people. Other companies will have a much sharper incentive to improve their management of sick leave and to take a greater interest in the health of their own employees."
    If there is no cost to business, where does that incentive, never mind a "sharper incentive", come from? The whole point, for the Government, is that there will be a cost unless companies themselves take other steps, which are not identified. Judging from the CBI survey of the management of sick leave, produced a little while ago, no such policies have been identified by anyone. Given the Government's track record, the fact that they cannot give us any breakdown of where the balance of the proposals for financial compensation in the Bill lies—to what extent the cut will compensate for statutory sick pay and to what

    853
    extent it will contribute, as the Government suggested, to job creation schemes—raises doubts. The Government's imprecision gives us real concern.
    What about small companies? The Chancellor continued his Budget speech by saying:
    "the current special exemptions"—
    for small companies—
    "will be extended. At present, those with national insurance bills of less than £16,000 a year are fully reimbursed after the first six weeks of each…claim. I propose to increase that threshold to £20,000, to bring more companies into the scheme, and to provide full reimbursement after only four weeks. Two thirds of all employers will therefore continue to get help."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 926.]
    That undoubtedly created the impression that there would be no cost to small companies—indeed, that they might benefit. Unfortunately, it appears that that is not true.
    The Chancellor mentioned improvements that he said he was making, but in preparing for today's debate our inquiries have elicited the information that there will be increased costs for small companies. At present, 80 per cent. of the costs of small companies are reimbursed for the first six weeks, and after that they receive 100 per cent. of their costs. The time limit is being lowered to four weeks, but until four weeks have passed small companies will get nothing. I repeat: they will get not one penny—not one halfpenny—of compensation for the first four weeks. Only then will they receive 100 per cent. compensation. No doubt it is merely an unfortunate coincidence that, as all the surveys confirm, the vast majority of periods of sick leave are shorter than four weeks.
    There is no reference to those facts in the Bill or in the notes on clauses. They emerged only during our inquiries in preparation for the debate. With only six hours available for all stages of the Bill, the facts might not have emerged at all during the debates. I assume that hon. Members would have concentrated their scrutiny of the legislation on what they thought were the difficult points, not on aspects that the Chancellor's words had led them to assume would not raise any problems.
    We now know that there will be a cost—probably a substantial cost—for small businesses, and that it will be enshrined in regulations, which, as everyone in the House knows, cannot be amended. Yet hon. Members on both sides of the House would not have drawn that implication from the Chancellor's words. That not only highlights the need for scrutiny of legislation but shows us all why the guillotine motion is before us.
    Tory Back Benchers are fond of posing as the champions of srnall business. There have been references in the press today—clearly, the result of briefings by Conservative Members—about the reassurance given to disgruntled Tory Back Benchers. Now we know what they were disgruntled about; they were being conned into voting for the Government, assuming that small businesses would be compensated. Now they know what is happening, and they can decide whether to vote for it.
    Ms Walley: While my right hon. Friend has been speaking, has she noticed that some Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Come Valley (Mr. Riddick), seem not to have known the facts? Can the Government have kept the information away from their Back Benchers?
    Mrs. Beckett: Judging by the expressions on the laces opposite, I believe that my hon. Friend is right, and that the information was kept from Conservative Members. That
    854
    demonstrates, more perfectly than any words of mine could, why scrutiny of legislation is required in this place, why that is the purpose for which the House exists and the dangers to which hon. Members lay themselves open by behaving in such a cavalier fashion towards the House.
    The proposal to guillotine the Bills in such a manner is shoddy and disreputable. During the debates on the Queen's Speech we referred to the insolence of office that shines through everything that the Government do. The problem both in the House and in the country is that the Administration believe that they can do anything that they like, and they do not even want to be bothered to come to the House to defend it. It is clear that deceit, incompetence and cowardice are the hallmarks of the Government.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. James Paice: I was not surprised to hear the speech by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett); such speeches are de rigueur for a debate on a timetable motion. I welcome the proposal to allocate time on the two Bills. Indeed, I believe that that should be a standard procedure for all legislation and I am sorry that that aspect of the Jopling proposals seems to have been lost in the mists of time. Hon. Members on both sides of the House sometimes refer to the importance of freedom of speech in this place, but after a few years here I have come to the conclusion that much of that is a facade. In reality, debate has to be curtailed if minds are to be concentrated. One of the features of timetabled debates is a better quality of discussion; more succinct arguments are addressed to particular amendments and to the particular concerns of the Bill.
    The right hon. Member for Derby, South did herself a disservice—not to mention causing offence to my hon. Friends and myself—by suggesting that Conservative Members were not aware of the absence of any help for the first four weeks. I am perfectly well aware of that and it is mentioned in much of the documentation that we have been sent by various organisations. It is indeed one of the matters that needs to be raised in the debate.
    I remind myself that we are considering timetables for two Bills—the Social Security (Contributions) Bill as well as the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. We have heard the sham anger from the Labour party, which before the general election planned to remove the upper earnings limit altogether. That would have meant a massive increase in national insurance contributions. The Labour party derides restraints on the time allowed for debate, yet if it had had its way many such issues would not even come before the House, because Labour would have handed the powers over to the European Community and the House would not have had the power to debate them.
    The anger is a sham, coming from the party that has handed social policy-making to a commission, an outside body. That body is now—believe it or not—coming up with one or two sensible ideas, such as questioning the universality of child benefit. I wonder whether that idea will quickly be buried deep in the holes of Walworth road.
    Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that, because one pursues a certain European policy, the House cannot debate such matters? If so, he fundamentally misunderstands how the Community works—and, indeed, how the House works.
    Mr. Paice: Outside the Chamber the hon. Gentleman and I are hon. Friends and he knows from our lengthy discussions that there is a difference between debate and constructive debate. We can debate European measures until the cows come home, but we cannot necessarily amend them. If the Labour party had signed up to the social chapter, as it was pledged to do, legislation relating to many issues would be agreed by majority voting in the Council of Ministers. We could debate their decisions for as long as we liked, but, after such scrutiny, we would have no power to change them. That very point was stressed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South.
    Mr. Terry Rooney: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Single European Act or the social chapter has been more damaging to the concept of subsidiarity?
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the social chapter has not even come into existence—
    Mr. Rooney: Yes, it has. The hon. Gentleman does not even know that.
    Mr. Paice: It is highly questionable to argue that subsidiarity is damaging the country. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that the Labour party did all that it possibly could to obstruct the progress of the concept of subsidiarity by obstructing the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—the Maastricht Bill—through the House. If the Labour party had had its way, subsidiarity would not be an option, because of its obstruction of the Maastricht Bill.
    The debate relates to the time allocated to two important, but small Bills. Those Bills will be considered after the House has had six days of debate on the Budget and, in the case of the social security contributions, five days of debate on the March Budget, when the I per cent, increase in national insurance contributions was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont).
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security came to the House the day after the Chancellor's Budget speech to announce the full details and implementation of the changes relating to social security? That was an opportunity for every hon. Member to take apart the proposals.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A statement offers another opportunity to hon. Members to question a Minister on whatever issue.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that he is not aware of the difference between the questions put after a statement and the examination of a Bill?
    Mr. Paice: Of course I am well aware of that difference, but a statement offers a further opportunity to hon. Members to understand exactly what is proposed. That information helps hon. Members to form their arguments on a particular matters. The ability to obtain information also counters the point made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who suggested that Conservative Members are unaware of the full implications of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. That is utter nonsense.
    856
    The timetable motion allocates a full day for the consideration of each of the Bills. In addition, today's debate offers another three hours in which hon. Members can, as is the tradition, speak about the Bill's contents.
    Mr. Dewar: That is wrong.
    Mr. Paice: That is the tradition behind timetable motions.
    We are talking about one Bill with three substantive clauses and another with two substantive clauses. Both relate largely to a matter of principle.
    The right hon. Member for Derby, South was right to draw attention to the implications for small businesses of the proposed changes in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill relating to the first four weeks during which an employee is ill. No doubt we will have ample opportunity to table amendments to that proposal and I am sure that it will be discussed many times.
    The Social Security (Contributions) Bill concerns a matter of principle. Hon. Members are either for or against the 1 per cent. rise in national insurance contributions. There is no need to provide a great deal of time for hon. Members to table amendments to that Bill.
    Given the size of the two Bills, I believe that two full days of debate offer ample time to hon. Members to make short, succinct contributions that get to grips with the issues. That is the way in which all debates should be handled. I strongly support the motion.
    4.53 pm
    Mr. Terry Rooney: I have been a Member of the House for just over three years and the one thing that I have learnt rapidly is that it behoves every hon. Member to read the representations that he or she receives, because they enlighten us about the implications of legislation.
    I have received 57 letters from those running small businesses and 16 from those running large businesses in my constituency—yes, there are still 16 large businesses left there. Those people have explained the true implications of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill not only for their businesses but for their employees. Just today I received letters recording even more concern from the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors—organisations not noted for their donations to the Labour party.
    The Leader of the House said that the Department of Social Security and its internal organisation had to get documents out in February. I wonder what happened—obviously it was before my time—when national insurance contributions were increased in previous March Budgets. Those contributions stood at 6 per cent. in 1979 and had increased to 9 per cent. before the current proposals. How was it possible for a change to be made in a March Budget and then introduced by 1 April without the aid of a guillotine motion? Now, with four months to play with, the Government have introduced such a guillotine.
    Mr. Newton: I specifically acknowledged in my speech that it is not impossible to do things at other times of the year. Announcements about national insurance contributions that were made in March were not implemented in April, because it was not practicable to do so, and were normally implemented in October. Over the years, the

    857
    business community found it extremely inconvenient to make national insurance changes and all that went with them twice a year.
    Mr. Rooney: I accept that explanation from the Leader of the House, but no doubt others will challenge it. [Laughter.] I am glad that hon. Members find that funny.
    The Government have made great play in recent times of the need to deregulate businesses. They have not, however, introduced much legislation to that effect. This week, however, we will debate the Statutory Sick Pay Bill for a maximum of six hours. But that Bill raises vital questions about exemption days and qualifying days. Following the decision last week, I wonder whether Sunday will become a qualifying day. What about the possible need for self-certification?
    All those matters are relevant to the implementation of the legislation, but they are not mentioned in it. No doubt at some time in the future loads and loads of regulations governing that legislation will be tabled—as they will concerning the Child Support Agency—but it will not be possible to amend them. By then the damage will have been done and the costs incurred and people will have suffered.
    The Statutory Sick Pay Bill represents a further betrayal of the promises made to employers when statutory sick pay was introduced and made the responsibility of management. Businesses were then told that 100 per cent. of the costs would be reimbursed and no one would lose out. I am reminded of the promises made in 1982 to local government when housing benefit management was transferred from the Department of Social Security to local authorities. Those promises came to nothing and council tax payers have had to bear the burden of tens of millions of pounds of lost revenue.
    When the amount of sick pay rebate was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent., with a corresponding reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, that reduction was not extended to local authorities. In other words, local authorities have suffered a 20 per cent. cut in the amount reimbursed to them and it has not been offset by a reduction in their national insurance contributions. Will local authorities be similarly excluded from the terms of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill? If so, we should be told of the consequences for council tax payers, who will be expected to carry an additional financial burden. That is another issue that is worthy of scrutiny and amendment.
    Two years ago we discussed a similarly so-called short Bill of two or three clauses. We were told that the House need not waste any time on it. It effectively gave people bribes to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme—SERPS—into personal pension plans. In the past week we have seen stories of hundreds of thousands of people whose cases are being investigated because they are being ripped off by shady insurance salesmen, and their personal pensions for the future are in question. That is the danger of chasing something through the House in a short space of time when dealing with major implications for people's personal future, security and welfare.
    Much has been made of the fact that the Bills were mentioned in the Queen's speech and in the Budget statement. It is worth drawing attention to two points to do with the Budget speech, which was one of the shortest in many years even though it embraced the annual public expenditure statement. Only as the days have gone by have
    858
    we started to see what was really in the Budget documents and not in the Chancellor's speech. Not least, we now find that not all pensioners will get the full amount. If they are on a reduced pension, they get reduced compensation for their VAT.
    It has still not been admitted anywhere that, as well as reducing the job seeker's allowance from 12 to six months, the Government have abolished the dependant's allowance, which was previously payable with unemployment benefit. That has not been mentioned in the House. It has not been spoken about by any Minister. I suspect that it has not been admitted to the Government Back Benches. One has to get down into the paperwork to find that information.
    The implications of the Bill are horrendous, covering as they do some 26 million people in work in hundreds of thousands of companies. Their prosperity, viability and profitability are at risk. With that there is a risk of higher unemployment. The Bills are so serious as to deserve much more than six hours of debate. I think that this is a stupid guillotine. It is totally unnecessary and should therefore be opposed.
    5.1 pm
    Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this short debate. I shall say at once that I support the measure. I believe that the guillotine is perfectly acceptable and that, important though they are, the issues that arise out of the debate are perfectly capable of being debated within the time span allowed and being given proper scrutiny. The Bill has implications for health—it makes a major contribution to health—and the competitiveness of industry. Those points have not been dwelt on at all by the Opposition, who seem to show little interest in them.
    On statutory sick pay, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was at her most high-minded when she opened the debate, talking about a measure that had major implications for British workers and businesses. One thing that I have learnt in this place is to be very suspicious of politicians when they are being excessively high-minded. In the case of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill it is instructive to look at the history of the matter and consider what may be the real reasons and motives that lie behind the sudden outburst of interest in the matter among Labour Members.
    The proposal first came before the House in the Budget statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, who clearly announced what the Government's intention was going to be in respect of statutory sick pay. As I said to the hon. Member for Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), although the Leader of the Opposition mentioned many other things in his response to the Budget debate, he did not see fit to mention at all the change in statutory sick pay, which had been announced by my right hon. and learned Friend.
    The matter came before the House again the following day, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made his statement and went into more detail. The hon. Member for Garscadden, on behalf of the Opposition, responded on that occasion. It is right that he raised the question of statutory sick pay in his response to my right hon. Friend. It was inevitable that he would do so, because it was the subject that he was covering.

    859
    I think that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss from me if I say that, in my experience of him, he is a stickler for detail. He is certainly assiduous in his attention to detail. There are times when he may regret going into as much detail as he does. In future, perhaps because of certain things that have happened here, we may have somewhat less detail from him. He took up the question of statutory sick pay with my right hon. Friend, but made no mention of a point made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South about small businesses.
    The hon. Gentleman did not pick up that point, although it was clear in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state, who explained what his proposals were going to be with the offsetting change in national insurance contributions and the protection that is being given to small businesses. Although the hon. Gentleman responded, he did not even query what the effect would be on small businesses let alone take up the point of the right hon. Member for Derby, South—so much for the hon. Gentleman's sudden concern for the fate of small business men.
    If the hon. Gentleman would like the answer to the question that was posed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, it is quite wrong to say that there is no compensation for small business men. They enjoy the national insurance contribution reduction in the same way as all other business men do. In addition, they get the protection of having 100 per cent. of the statutory sick pay rebated to them after four weeks of sickness. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) says, "After four weeks," but if he knows about this, he will know that the present limit is six weeks and that it has been reduced to four weeks and is being made at 100 per cent. rather than at the rate of 80 per cent.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is it not rather extraordinary that the shadow Leader of the House should make a great revelation about a particular aspect of the small business relief as though she had stumbled on it by accident hidden in some dark recess? If she were to look at the Library brief on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, she will find that it is there, under the heading "New Small Employers' Relief".
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: When was it published?
    Mr. Jenkin: Obviously it was published in time for this debate. It would have been published in time for the debate on Second Reading and the Committee stage.
    Is it not extraordinary that the official Opposition should need to make such bogus points about the measure?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right. There have been no secret documents or secret inquiries made. If Opposition Members had an interest in the matter and took the time and trouble to study and listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said on 1 December, they would have seen that the proposals were clearly set out there. Nothing new has come out since. The proposals were there. The difference is that Opposition Members—Labour and Liberal Democrats—were not interested at that stage in small businesses. They did not even have the interest to express any view about small businesses in their response to that debate.
    860
    The story gets worse from there on, because after that debate we had days of debate on the Budget—a specially extended debate. Shadow spokesmen on health made no mention of the matter, although it has major implications for health. A shadow spokesman on employment made no mention of statutory sick pay. In fact, no other Members on the Opposition Front Bench mentioned it, apart from the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Peckham (Ms Harman), who made the most passing remark about the cost being passed on to employers, without taking any account of the offset in national insurance contributions. That was clearly an omission. I shall leave hon. Members to judge whether it was an intentional or negligent omission in each case.
    Opposition Front Bench Members were hardly being egged on by a tremendous outburst of interest and enthusiasm from their hon. Friends on the Back Benches, because so far as I can see—in my humble research into the matter—there were 34 speeches from Opposition Members in that long debate. Only two of those speeches mentioned statutory sick pay. They did not take up the point that was made today by the right hon. Member for Derby, South. Yet all the proposals were known. They were all there.
    If Opposition Members had not been in the Chamber to hear the announcements in the Budget speech or my right hon. Friend's statement, they could have looked it up in Hansard. It was all there, yet there was no interest and o inquiries were made. I am driven to the conclusion that there is something strange going on with the Opposition. Why is there such a sudden outburst of enthusiasm for this Bill? What is the real reason for the sudden launching of guerrilla warfare? It is not for me to speculate on that.
    Mr. Denham: I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. On a number of occasions, he has suggested that the arrangements that would apply to small businesses as a result of the Budget statement and the uprating statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Security were perfectly clear. I have a copy of the Library briefing on the social security uprating statement and I cannot find anywhere in it anything which says that small employers will have to foot 100 per cent. of the bill for the first four weeks. Why is the hon. Gentleman so confident that that should have been crystal clear to the House?
    Mr. Clappison: I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the second half of column 1037. If he applies his mind to it, he will see that it sets out the matter clearly.
    Part of my reason for taking part in the debate was so that I could strongly endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) about the timetabling of Bills and the scrutiny of legislation. In my short experience, I have taken part in the deliberations on a long Bill, with a number of clauses. My experience of the debates on the Education Bill led me to the conclusion that the quality of debate and of scrutiny are much improved by timetabling so that there can be constructive and intelligent debate without the Opposition trying to delay and procrastinate, using base parliamentary tactics to obstruct the passage of Bills.
    I see the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) laugh. I think he knows all too well what I am getting at. My experience also led me to the conclusion that the Opposition's motives for what they were doing were often different from what they claimed.
    Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman also recall that Conservative Members, in what was a long-sitting Committee considering the Education Bill, refused to speak and give us the benefit, or otherwise, of their thoughts? That was a great shame, because it meant that we had to examine the Bill from the Conservative angle as well as from our own.
    Mr. Clappison: I enjoyed the company of the hon. Gentleman on that Committee. I think that he will remember that I made my own contributions to the debate, but I found it difficult to speak for as long and to as little effect as the hon. Gentleman.
    The Bill deals with important issues such as improving the health of the work force, improving managements' administration of sick time and improving efficiency. I remind the Opposition that we have the second worst rate of absenteeism in the European Community. It is an important and straightforward Bill, which will create incentives to encourage management to manage more efficiently and to deal with sick time, while at the same time compensating business.
    Those are important points, but they can be dealt with in short order. As to the point made by the Opposition about small businesses, any small business man would greet that with the hollowest of laughs, given the massive programme of regulation to which the Opposition are prepared to sign up in the name of socialism under the socialist programme for the European parliamentary elections.
    5.12 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has got it all wrong if he thinks that the issue that we are debating, particularly when we are debating it under a guillotine, has anything to do with the merits or demerits of timetabling. I am happy to engage in discussions about timetabling, although that is difficult—much more difficult for an Opposition Member than a Government Member, but the hon. Gentleman may not always be sitting on the Government Benches. The House must deal with timetabling properly, but the Leader of the House does not make it any easier to deal objectively with timetabling when he treats us in this way.
    We are faced with the most draconian guillotine that I have ever seen since I came to the House in 1983. As I said in the short debate on the money resolution last night, those on the Government Front Bench have to be careful about the precedents they set, because precedents can be used by anybody and everybody. If the House slips into a process of guillotining Bills before Second Reading, that will be another big step down the wrong slippery slope towards getting the procedures of the House and the rules and conventions disrupted. That may encourage others to emulate the Government's example, but it would not be sensible for the democratic process of the House.
    I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who said that the Bill has only five clauses. I do not know where he was last year, but let me draw his attention to the fact that the Maastricht Bill had only five or six clauses. He said that there are one or two important issues of principle here, and so there are. However, £1,900 million-worth of expenditure is involved. The Bills were published only a few days ago, and are scant on the detail of some of the
    862
    secondary enabling legislation. I agree that there are only five clauses, and that must be taken into account when we consider how many hours to allocate to them.
    This is the most draconian timetable that I have come across, and I was caught by that. I gave the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East an example. In good faith, I tabled a reasoned amendment against Second Reading —the House will know that, because it is on the Order Paper—of the Social Security Bill on Thursday. Were that amendment to be selected by the Chair—that is at the discretion of the Chair—the 15 minutes on the vote would be taken off the total time available for the Bill.
    That puts constraints on hon. Members who have a bona fide interest in trying to argue a case for a constructive and positive Second Reading amendment. If the amendment were selected, I would have to decide whether a vote on it would be the best use of the time of the House. That is a difficult position in which to put hon. Members when they are debating such important issues.
    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is not one of the Government's dilemmas the fact that the Opposition's Whips Office is often unable to deliver its agreements made through the usual channels? The Whips go around saying, "We're not voting on this, brother," but hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) force Divisions, taking up 20 minutes every time they do so.
    I was in the engineering union, and I would tell the hon. Member for Bolsover, had he been sitting in his place now —we are not being televised live, so he is not here—that he does not pull his weight. He has a free ride. He never serves on Committees, while we are upstairs doing the work. If the Labour party cannot control its members, we shall continue to have problems.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth followed the habit of the House and informed my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that he intended to attack him in the Chamber?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Lady is right: that is the convention.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I know the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and I suspect that he can look after himself. That intervention, helpful or otherwise, should not have been addressed to me. I have already offered to act as bookie's runner between the two Front Benches. For a small fee, I am anybody's. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We all have a price. The sooner that the two Front-Bench teams get their act together, the happier we shall all be. If that happens before Christmas, nobody will be happier than me.
    My experience of the past 10 years has shown me that guillotine debates get further and further away from the purpose on which they are supposed to be focused—looking at the details of the timetabling motion. I should be interested—I bet any money that he does not—if the Leader of the House could explain why he thinks it necessary to put in some of the verbiage in the guillotine motion.
    Paragraph 1(5) says:
    "No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken."

    863
    I will give the Leader of the House a £5 note for every time that has happened in the past 10 years. Paragraph 7 deals with supplemental orders, and paragraph 8, on saving, means that the debate can end sooner than is set out in the guillotine motion. As for paragraph 9, it would be fascinating to know what figment of the parliamentary draftsman's fantastic imagination made him think that it was necessary to have that paragraph in the motion. Those paragraphs are extraneous, irrelevant and totally unnecessary.
    Why do we allow Ministers to table timetable motions that no one inside the House understands, let alone anyone outside the House? I spent the morning with the Clerks —and very helpful they were too—but how many other hon. Members spend time with the Clerks? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is an honourable exception.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Member knows that I have huge respect for him. He will realise that these things are drafted by incredibly clever parliamentary draftsmen, and it would probably be better if I sought advice before answering the hon. Gentleman's question. It is not unknown for hon. Members to cause difficulties in the procedure on timetable business—for example, by moving other debateable motions that consume the time available. They then complain that a Bill has not been debated. We are trying to ensure that the hon. Gentleman is able to make the constructive comments that he always does.
    Mr. Kirkwood: That is a monstrous attack on the hon. Member for Garscadden. I am sure that he would not do anything of the kind.
    Mr. Newton: It is not the hon. Member for Garscadden that I have in mind. Wild horses would not force me to say who it is.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Anyone who looks at the guillotine motion, and asks the Clerks what it is all about, will see that, in paragraphs 4 and 5, the Leader of the House has taken sensible powers because he knows that absent friends could create difficulties.
    I am not saying that guillotine motions do not have to contain certain necessary elements. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 make some sense in relation to the Government's position, but all the other rubbish is completely phantasmagorical nonsense and should not be there. May I return the compliment and say that the Leader of the House is a man for whom I have enormous respect, and I know that he is not given to this kind of thing.
    If the Government are to resort to guillotine motions in future, there should be a sensible Standing Order that sets out the elements that a proper guillotine motion could and should contain. The motion would then come before the House as a numbered Standing Order. Everyone would then know exactly what the Government were trying to do by the motion.
    I bet my bottom dollar that no more than three or four hon. Members in the Chamber could give a passable explanation of the detail of the contents of today's motion.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member is missing the point. The Government's decision to put down a guillotine is not to make things clear to the House or the electorate.
    864
    Their express purpose is to hide what they are trying to do. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the wording is to miss the whole import of the Government's reasoning.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I stand suitably chastened. I was trying to explain from the House's point of view; I was not trying to make party political capital. The hon. Lady is right: some chicanery is going on to cover the Government's embarrassment. It does not make sense for the House to discuss motions that are unintelligible to everyone, including experts.
    The Leader of the House's point about the 6 April deadline is vitiated, because everyone knows that the Government need to give proper notice. That deadline has always been the point at which administrative changes should take effect. Why did he not start last spring to contrive a parliamentary framework in which we could have a more sensible debate on this matter? He has got himself boxed in and has had to bring forward this legislation, which is of limited but important scope, in short order. He did not make a strong point when he claimed that it has been known for months that we needed to do this. He should have brought forward legislation about the national insurance contribution changes earlier.
    The Statutory Sick Pay Bill is a very important piece of legislation, particularly in the financial effects that it will have on small businesses. I talk to small business men more than I do to the larger organisations that represent industry, and they have told me that they feel that, over the past five years or so, the Government have let them down.
    They were given commitments and undertakings when the old national insurance contributory benefit of sick pay, which used to be paid at the 100 per cent. rate, was changed. They were assured that there would be no difficulties with the changes, and that they could rely on the Government's word that they would not lose.
    That amount has now been reduced, particularly in respect of small businesses, and those businesses now face financial difficulties. A business that employs eight to 10 men and has employees off sick for two or three weeks, especially if two or three of them are off at the same time, will have no cover, and will have difficulties with its cash flow.
    The Bill is not only about the adverse financial effects but will strike at the root of the relationship that small businesses should have with the Government of the day. Small business men feel that they have been let down. Most of the representations that I have received refer more to that relationship than to the cash flow and other implications of statutory sick pay.
    Small businesses have lost confidence that they will be treated reasonably and fairly by the Government, because of the changes and the way that they have been made.
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will say more about this when he winds up, but the point that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has made about small businesses—whatever representations may have been made to him—needs to be studied more carefully.
    I have a table of the position of small firms with five employees, with an average sickness record, earning £90, £130, £190, £250 and £340. In each and every case, on average sickness records, those firms will be better off. Set against what they may have to find for the odd few weeks

    865
    in particular sickness cases, there will be reductions for their employees' weekly national insurance contributions, week in and week out, for 52 weeks.
    Mr. Kirkwood: That will come out in the wash. Those initial assessments may have been made on a false prospectus. Small business men have told me that they are worried about the losses they will incur, but they are more worried about the way they are being treated. That is something that the Government should attend to. If confidence in the partnership between small businesses and the Government is not maintained, it bodes ill for the future of our country.
    The changes that have been introduced to statutory sick pay for small businesses are very difficult, if not impossible, to determine. It is not possible to work out the detailed effects of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill from its content, because of its enabling nature and because it increases the power of Ministers to table legislation.
    The House must be resistant, strong and robust in objecting to Ministers' coming to the House day after day, week after week, to ask for more powers. In many instances, negative resolutions are involved: hon. Members must pray against the orders involved, and sometimes even that does not enable us to debate them. Indeed, securing debates has become increasingly difficult recently. That is bad for the democratic process, and I believe that people outside are already becoming disillusioned with the way in which we do our business.
    As I have explained, I consider guillotine motions such as this unintelligible and inexplicable, and I believe that the Leader of the House has produced little justification for them in his rationale. Although such motions can be justified in certain circumstances, I consider this one completely unjustifiable. The House should reject it.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Graham Riddick: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). As with most Liberal Democrats, butter would not melt in his mouth. At one point he cracked a little joke, saying that for a small fee he was anybody's; the joke would have had a greater ring of truth had the hon. Gentleman said that he was anybody's —that he would do and say anything—for a constituent's vote. As we know, the Liberal Democrats are happy to say one thing on one doorstep, and the opposite on the next. But you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall say no more about the Liberal Democrats this evening.
    Today's guillotine motion has an interesting backdrop —the first unified Budget. We should also bear in mind the fact that one of the Bills that we are discussing is very much part of the Government's overall economic policy. The motion has supposedly led to the suspension of cross-party co-operation in Parliament—the end of the so-called usual channels. I consider that something of a smokescreen: to some extent, I must take the blame for the ending of that cross-party co-operation.
    Last Tuesday, I unveiled the incompetence of the Opposition by remarking, on a point of order, that they could have tabled an amendment to the Government's Budget motion, which would have allowed them to vote on the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. Why did they not do that? Were they incompetent, or were they happy with the Chancellor's compensation package?
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Both.
    Mr. Riddick: That may be true. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is seated on the Opposition Front Bench, gave the Government a helpful steer before the Budget had even been announced: he told us that 50p a week on pensions would do the trick. That was very good of him, and the Chancellor offered exactly that—but only in the first year; the compensation will become more generous in the second year. At the end of the process, single pensioners will be £1 a week better off than they would otherwise have been, and pensioner couples will be £1·40 a week better off.
    Mr. Jim Dowd rose—
    Mr. Riddick: I am coming to the point; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
    In fact, the Opposition should be happy with the compensation package. Why, then, are they ending cross-party co-operation? They tell us that it is because of the guillotine motion, but I want to expose the real reason. I believe that we must return to the "incompetence" argument. As I have said, the Opposition could have tabled an amendment to the Government's Budget motion on Tuesday, whose wording was the same as motions tabled by a Labour Government in 1977 and 1988—and, indeed, motions tabled by the Conservative Government throughout the 1980s. Lord Jenkins actually tabled such an amendment in 1983. The truth is that this time the Opposition simply got it wrong.
    We also know that there has been an unholy row in the parliamentary Labour party, between the shadow Treasury team and the shadow Leader of the House, between the shadow Leader of the House and the Whips, and in the shadow Cabinet generally. Labour Members have tried to blame the Prime Minister for their own incompetence: I was able to expose that in my point of order last week.
    Over the past few days, we have read a good deal in the press about how the Opposition will refuse to co-operate with the Government through the "usual channels". They say that that is because of the guillotine motion, but, as I have said, they are merely trying to cover up their own incompetence of last week. Moreover, there is a growing disenchantment on the Labour Back Benches with the performance of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little too wide of the subject, which is the guillotine motion. I should be grateful if he would confine his remarks to it.
    Mr. Riddick: I thought that you might pull me up at some stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was intending to apologise to Labour Members—and, indeed, Conservative Members—who may be inconvenienced by the fact that the usual channels are no longer working properly.
    I believe that the guillotine motion could prove very helpful to Opposition Members. As we know, they do not have a very good voting record, and I think it will be beneficial for them to know when votes will take place: they will be able to ensure that they are in the House. Campaign Information Ltd. recently conducted a survey of hon. Members' voting records; it found that Conservative Members voted in 75 per cent. of all Divisions, while

    867
    Labour Members voted in 55 per cent. and Liberal Democrats in 62 per cent.—the record of the Liberal Democrats was slightly better than that of Labour.
    As I pointed out today at Prime Minister's Question Time, the vast majority of Members of Parliament among the top 200 voters were Conservatives; only six were Labour Members. Modesty forbids me to make a big deal about the fact that I was in the top 100, coming 84th in the league table.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall not have to intervene again to remind the hon. Gentleman that the House is debating the guillotine motion. He must confine his remarks to that.
    Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you for making that clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that the guillotine motion will not merely help Conservative Members; it may help Opposition Members even more. It is they who seem to find difficulty in coming to the House to vote. I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on coming first in the Division league table, but he is not present. Perhaps one reason why he can spend so much time voting in the House is that he never spends any time sitting on Committees.
    Mr. Dickens: He has not done so for years.
    Mr. Riddick: Not since 1988, I believe. The hon. Gentleman is very embarrassed about it, but as he is not present to defend himself, I shall not say much more.
    We have two short, simple Bills in front of us. The national insurance changes were announced in March, and we had a long debate on the Budget speech at that time. We have had another lengthy debate on the recent unified Budget for about five or six days, during which the Statutory Sick Pay Bill could have been raised at any time.
    I do not want to see national insurance contributions increased at all. I do not want to see any taxes increased or see any tax allowances reduced, but we have a problem with the public sector borrowing requirement deficit. That is one crucial difference between Conservative and Labour Members—we do not like to increase taxation or national insurance contributions and Labour Members do.
    Every Labour Government, from the first one in the early 1920s, have increased the basic rate of income tax. As Conservatives, we do not like increasing taxation or national insurance contributions, but, at the same time, we recognise that we must have sound public finance, and that is what the Social Security (Contributions) Bill is all about.
    We have a PSBR deficit of some £50 billion. the Chancellor was skilful in his Budget, as he managed to increase revenue—the Social Security (Contributions) Bill was part of that process—and at the same time reduce public spending in a number of areas without harming the key services of health and education. The only message that I would like to get over to the Chancellor is that, now that we have a tighter fiscal situation, we need a looser monetary framework. I hope that we will achieve that in the near future, by a reduction in interest rates.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) intervened during the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and made reference to me.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Was my hon. Friend referring to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? It is important that we know to whom he is referring as he makes his way through his speech.
    Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I was referring to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North who intervened during the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South, and accused me of not understanding what was in the Bill in relation to small businesses having to pay sick pay for the first four weeks. The Chancellor made it crystal clear that the increased contributions that both large and small employers will have to make towards statutory sick pay will be more than offset by the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. The figures suggest that small businesses will be net gainers under that process.
    The Government should be encouraging all companies, especially small companies, to improve the sickness record of their own employees. The Bill will provide an additional incentive to businesses to ensure that the health and fitness of employees is maintained. That is an important principle, which I entirely support. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill will also mean that administration of sick pay should be simplified. The other benefit, to which I have already referred, is that small businesses should face a smaller burden as a result of the Bill, not a larger burden, as the right hon. Member for Derby, South said.
    We have heard an awful lot of synthetic rage from Opposition Members, who say that they do not like the guillotine and that it is an outrage. They are deeply embarrassed by their own conduct, because they have made so little impact in the House for some time, and because they failed to table an amendment about VAT on fuel in the past week. That is why Labour Members have decided to cut off relations with the Government.
    I do not expect that it will last long, because the Opposition will not be able to carry their own troops, judging from their poor voting record. That is the background to the debate, and that is why I am happy to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. John Hutton: It has often been my responsibility to follow the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). I feel some sympathy for him on this occasion, because he obviously found himself without a prepared speech, but was nevertheless required to occupy an amount of time in the debate. It would be wrong to describe his remarks as anything resembling a speech. It was the familiar mumbo-jumbo and rhetoric that we often hear from Back-Bench Conservative Members who are instructed by their Whips to occupy time and speak in the Chamber.
    Mr. Don Dixon: That is not so on the Labour Benches.
    Mr. Hutton: As my hon. Friend says, Opposition Members do not find themselves in that situation.
    The hon. Member for Colne Valley failed to address some of the substantive arguments that are relevant to the debate. The guillotine motion is an abuse of the majority power of the Conservative party. As I said to the Leader of the House, when a parliamentary Session has only just

    869
    begun, it is unprecedented for the Government to use their power to steamroller an allocation of time order through the House.
    We are only four weeks into the parliamentary Session, and some of the proposed changes will have a significant effect on millions of people and on millions of small and large businesses. It is entirely appropriate under those circumstances for the House to spend more time discussing the proposals than the Government are seemingly prepared to tolerate.
    An allocation of time order leads to bad law-making, because it denies hon. Members the chance to explore the wider aspects of Bills. References have been made to occasions on which an allocation of time order has been imposed, and its consequences have been spelt out.
    I think especially of the recent legislation on the poll tax, which was an expensive fiasco that damaged the tax base, affected millions of people, and continues to do so, as there is some £2 billion unpaid poll tax still outstanding. That is the result of incompetence and poor management of business in the House, yet we are about to witness a further example of such mismanagement. We have also had time to reflect on the Criminal Justice Act 1991—another result of bad law-making.
    The guillotine motion should be rejected also because it brings the House into some disrepute. We are elected as Members of the House of Commons to scrutinise legislation, especially legislation of tax-bearing dimension. The total money dealt with by these two Bills combined will run into billions of pounds—the money of ordinary taxpayers and small businesses.
    I have been interested in the comments of Conservative Members about the effect of the Bill on small businesses. I do not believe that they have understood the full implications of the Bill in that area, and I hope that the debate will bring some of them out.
    We cannot justify passing legislation in such a cack-handed and slipshod fashion to our constituents. Both Bills require further and more detailed scrutiny. It is not a legitimate argument for Conservative Members to say that there are few clauses in either Bill. That misses the point.
    It is clear that, with the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, a host of complex regulations will be introduced by statutory instruments between now and the end of April. Those regulations will require detailed scrutiny as well, but as hon. Members know, we have limited and diminishing opportunities to subject those instruments to the fullest scrutiny.
    The argument that we need spend only a short time on these Bills because they are short stems from a complete misunderstanding of the legislative process. If we need any reminder of that, hon. Members might reflect on the equally short Maastricht Bill which, rightly and properly, occupied many months on the Floor of the House.
    The truth is that there is little constitutional propriety about presenting such a motion to the House at this time in the parliamentary Session. I asked the Leader of the House whether he could find a previous occasion when such an order had been presented. He failed to provide any illustration of such a motion, because there is none. That lack of information from the Leader of the House provides confirmation, if any is needed, of the inappropriate nature of this order.
    As is often the case in our proceedings here, the reality is quite different. We are spending such a short time on the Bills because of their nature. Both are deeply unpopular. If
    870
    the full implications of both were properly understood outside the House, they would have a damaging impact on the Government's already abysmal opinion poll rating. If the Budget is so popular, why are we not being allowed more time to discuss these Bills, which, as hon. Members on both sides have recognised, are central to the Chancellor's Budget strategy?
    Mr. Tony Marlow: May I illustrate a point to strengthen the case? Like me, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have received a great deal of correspondence and been involved in contact with fathers concerned about the activities of the Child Support Agency. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the detail of the activities of that agency was decided by order on the last day of the parliamentary Session, when hardly any Members of Parliament were present? These things should be debated and discussed and should be open for public debate. We get into a mess by passing measures quickly.
    Mr. Hutton: Not for the first time, I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He has made a telling point, and I hope that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who is on the Treasury Bench, has heard some of his comments. There is no doubt that that is a further illustration of some of the mistakes that we are making in our approach to law-making.
    I believe that the real purpose of the guillotine motion is to silence debate, not to encourage it. The Government hope that, by doing that, they will ensure as few people as possible outside the House will understand and appreciate the damage they are doing to small businesses and ordinary taxpayers.
    As I have said, the Bills are central to the Government's Budget strategy. The leader of the House confirmed that. The national insurance contributions Bill will hike up direct taxes. I wonder how many people who voted Conservative at the general election fully appreciated that they would be asked to pay an extra 1 per cent. on their national insurance contributions.
    In that context, we must remember that the hike in the contributions in the form proposed by the Government is a regressive way of raising some extra revenue they need to cover the hole in the Government's public borrowing.
    Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the requirement for the national insurance fund to balance, at least in part, is a long-established principle? Will he admit that that fund has no borrowing ability, and that therefore the Government have a duty to introduce the measures in the Bill?
    Mr. Hutton: I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman's points. He is trying to camouflage the real scale of the Government's financial incompetence by giving the national insurance hike a bogus rationality. None of his arguments stands up to close scrutiny.
    The Government are in a deep hole on public spending, and they are using the national insurance contributions hike to close that down. As I have said, it is a regressive way to close that gap in the Government's public sector borrowing. It will particularly affect those on low incomes, and will result in an increase of £3·20 a week in national insurance contributions for all taxpayers.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) drew attention to the fact that the increase will be regressive. It will raise £300 million more than a

    871
    penny rise in income tax, precisely because national insurance contributions bite at a lower earnings level than income tax. If we look at the Bill in that context, it is clear that the guillotine motion has been introduced because of the Government's broken election promises.
    The Statutory Sick Pay Bill reflects the other central strategy in the Government's Budget. In the national insurance Bill we have seen a hike in direct taxes—something that the Government said they would never do. The Bill is a further attack on the sick and disabled in our community. It is clear that it will have an adverse impact on small employers.
    It is interesting to note that, when the Government last changed the rules on statutory sick pay in 1991, they did so with little or no consultation with the business community. When the National Audit Office looked into the effects of the last round of changes, it identified the fact that the Government were conducting an independent assessment of the impact of those changes.
    That independently commissioned report has not yet been published. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister is prepared to let us know its findings. Opposition Members do not believe the Government's argument that the changes to statutory sick pay will have no impact on small employers. We believe that they will have a substantial and damaging impact.
    The guillotine motion should be resisted, precisely because of the points to which the hon. Member for Northampton, North drew attention, and because it brings the House into disrepute. At this stage in the parliamentary cycle, there is no justification for this motion. It damages our credibility as effective law makers, and we should reject it.
    Mr. Garnier: Given the line that the hon. Gentleman is taking, does he agree that the conduct of his colleagues during the final stages of the Railways Bill, when they blocked the Lobbies and so on, also brought the House into disrepute, and that those in glasshouses should not throw stones?
    Mr. Hutton: I believe that on that occasion Opposition Members used tactics which were perfectly legitimate for a loyal Opposition, and I stick to that assessment. There was nothing improper or in breach of the Standing Orders of the House in the behaviour of Opposition Members on that occasion. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I am trying to finish my remarks, but I am finding it difficult because of the interventions.
    This motion is unacceptable; hon. Members who care about the reputation of the House as a law-making institution should think carefully before supporting it.
    5.57 pm
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the way in which he has pursued this measure. He has selected a constitutional innovation which was introduced by the Government under the present premiership—to guillotine Bills before we have even had Second Reading. It is an extraordinary development. It is to be deeply deplored and it is odious because it reduces the House to nothing.
    872
    I came here, having been elected by the citizens of Aldridge-Brownhills, with the thought that, when they had cause to be anxious about something, I might be able to contribute to the process of debate—the detailed scrutiny of legislation where appropriate. I do not know why my right hon. Friend has chosen to guillotine a Bill before Second Reading and before we have heard where, in the detail of the Bill, the argument may lie. That develops in Committee.
    A great former Home Secretary, the Luther of Mole Valley, now Lord Baker, was confronted with a real menace when he introduced his famous appendum to British constitutional history. If the House recalls, the nation was assaulted by ravaging dogs on every street corner that threatened our welfare, life and liberty, and emergency action was required. The Luther of Mole Valley did not hesitate. The Churchill of our Front Bench required action this day. At the behest of the popular newspapers, the House scampered along, citing something that was not so—that the danger was so great that the House should consider all stages. He allowed some 11 or 12 hours to discuss that important measure.
    When the motion is passed, as I have no doubt it will be, it will be the fifth time that the Government have used this constitutional innovation. It is outrageous. The purpose of the House, and its lifestream, is to consider legislation. I remind some of my hon. Friends that Second Reading is about principle. We may agree on the principle of, for instance, driving to Birmingham. Most of us would assume that we may argue about whether to take the M1 and M6 or the M40 and M6, but when I find that we go via Cornwall and Wales and end up in Dublin, having gone via Edinburgh, I may want to move an amendment suggesting that it would be more practical, expedient and economical to go down the M1 and M40. Those are legitimate reasons.
    I object greatly to the Bills. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill introduces a massive change of principle and will have great consequences for many small businesses which, with their backs against the wall, see no sign of recovery. Their staff will be taxed and they will have to fund sick pay for the first four weeks. I have a view on that.
    However, this constitutional outrage of always insisting on guillotines has become an instrument of the Executive. Will the House reflect on the figures, which I have gone through before? Between 1945 and 1975, 30 Bills were guillotined. That is an average of one a year, if it is worth while averaging such things.
    Under the Labour Administration, there were five guillotines in an afternoon. I thought that that was wrong and I still think that it is wrong. I listened to Michael Foot, whose fundamental argument was that, because Labour had no majority, it was appropriate to impose a guillotine motion. I always found that argument to be fatuous. If a Government have not carried the sentiments of the country with them, they have no right to impose a guillotine motion. In any event, Labour introduced some 14 guillotine motions—the House will understand that I cite those figures from memory—but a transformation came in 1979. I believe that the fault lies in the Whips Office rather than at the heart of Government, but it has become a habit. The guillotine has been introduced as an instrument of the Executive to bludgeon through legislation.
    With a majority of 100 in the second of her two Parliaments and a majority of 40 in her first, it took Mrs. Thatcher—or her business managers—58 guillotines to push through her business. That is an average of five a year.

    873
    We now have a nation at peace with itself, no less, and the Prime Minister's business managers require 18 guillotine motions in three years, thus increasing the average. That means that the Executive need not trouble itself overly with the House of Commons. I remind my hon. Friends of the difference between examining principle and examining detail, which are fundamental duties of the House.
    I watched Mrs. Thatcher's premiership come to an end. The poll tax was driven through with guillotine motions in this place, including on the Lords amendments. Had Mrs. Thatcher's Government listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), we might have been able to overcome the principle. We might have been able to make the Bill work. But no, no—off with our heads. We were told that Parliament had had enough time on it. The matter so destabilised public opinion, and, eventually, the views of my friends and colleagues in the Tea Room, that Mrs. Thatcher's premiership came to an end.
    It is important that the House discharge; its constitutional responsibilities, because we are not just an agent of Executive wish and whim. I may have overstated the case about my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley with his Dangerous Dogs Bill, but I have seen it before. On the football spectators legislation, the House was bludgeoned to create an Act of Parliament, no less, with all the nonsense associated with that. It hung cm the say-so of a third party—a judge outside the House. Although the House was cranked up to push the legislation through, ultimately the measure was snuffed out, not particularly by the wish of the House but by the judge's decision.
    Finally, I wish to utter a note of caution. One of the major flags of the present Session is to be a deregulation Bill. We shall deregulate Acts of Parliament—matters that have been considered by the House—in a way that some of us will find deeply distasteful. I never wish to give, nor do I wish to see my fellow countrymen give, into the hands of any Minister of the Crown the ability to decide what is legislation and what is not. That is our business, transacted on behalf of the people of this country and our constituents. We may soon have handed over that opportunity because we have over-legislated and legislated too casually.
    The record of the 15 years in which I have been a Member has become worse and worse. I beg the House to reject the concept that the guillotine motion is the instrument of Executive whim. The latest fantasy, whether it is a Dangerous Dogs Bill or a Football Spectators Bill, must not be driven through the House merely on the nod, in a truncated sitting, the duration of which can be added up in minutes. Small businesses and people whom I represent will be condemned in six hours to funding sick pay in a major change of principle and policy. That is worth proper scrutiny of the Bill's detail.
    Ultimately, this country's check and balance are no longer here. They are in our courts and are called judicial review. We must stir ourselves up, remember who we are and what this House is. We wish all our Governments well because our prosperity, well-being and fate are in their hands, but that does not mean that we should abdicate our responsibilities and accept such absurdities. We have time to look at the matter properly.
    6.6 pm
    Mr. John Denham: It is disconcerting to sit through such a debate hoping to do some damage to the Government and then hear far more damage done to their reputation by a Conservative Member. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has spoken with great conviction, not just on this issue but on abuses, spanning many years, of the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation properly. As a much newer Member, I find that there are lessons in what he has to say to this and any Government about how to handle our affairs.
    I have listened with interest to the debate, but my mind has been dominated by a picture that flashed into it early in the proceedings. It was a picture of the office of the Leader of the House on the morning of 1 December, just as the champagne bubbles were finally beginning to pop after what was regarded as a successful Budget, which had not yet begun to come apart. It was the first unified Budget, which had been in preparation for 18 months, in which the machinery of government, the responsibilities of civil servants and the timetable of their work had all been changed.
    The Leader of the House is asking us to believe that he was in his office on that morning when a civil servant put his head round the door and said, "Minister, we have suddenly realised that, to implement the Budget, you must guillotine the two key Bills before Christmas." I am sorry but I do not believe that, after 18 months' preparation for a unified Budget, it was not until the day after the Chancellor's speech that someone discovered that it would be difficult to get the Budget through the House in time for April.
    I do not believe that the problem was not anticipated well before the Budget. I asked the Leader of the House earlier whether this would be an annual occurrence, but I shall have to look at the Official Report and read his answer, because I did not understand a word of it. He said neither yes nor no—he would have to look at it. All those problems, however, must have been anticipated in the planning stages of the first unified Budget.
    No one could believe that, with the great weight of legal advice and procedural advice available to the Government, possible difficulties with implementing Budget legislation in time for April were not anticipated. The Government must have known that this problem might arise, and they consciously chose to approach the legislation in this draconian fashion, leaving hon. Members with far too little time to discuss the problems and issues properly.
    It is interesting to note how, after the first euphoric 24 hours, the Budget has begun to unravel. I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer claiming to be receiving support from business interests: from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the National Farmers Union—the very organisations that have written to hon. Members in the past 24 hours opposing the guillotine and the measure that we are debating.
    Some Conservative Members tried to have some fun at our expense earlier, asking why Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen did not raise these issues during the Budget debate. Why, those Members asked, did they not seize on them and highlight them? The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) informed me that the impact on small businesses, which will have to pay 100 per cent. of

    875
    statutory sick pay for the first four weeks, was perfectly clear from the statement made to the House on the uprating of benefits by the Secretary of State for Social Security. The hon. Gentleman referred me to column 1037. That column contains nothing relevant, but I assume that he meant 1038. There, the Secretary of State told the House:
    "From April next year, I propose to abolish reimbursement"
    of statutory sick pay
    "except to small employers … So far, we have been reimbursing 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay for absences of longer than six weeks. I shall start giving 100 per cent. help after four weeks." —[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
    So that was it—nothing about employers beginning to have to make contributions in the first four weeks, when they pay only 20 per cent. now.
    It is therefore surprising that business lobbies, most of the press and many Opposition Members did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman's weasel words would hammer small employers with charges that they do not pay at the moment? Of course it is not surprising. Conservative Members who pray in aid this statement in defence of the Government are being outrageous. Having studied the Secretary of State's words, I have no doubt that, should he lose his current job, he would have no difficulty in securing another—selling personal pension plans to members of occupational pension schemes. That is what I think of the degree of integrity exhibited by his statement. It was simply more evidence that every attempt has been made to obscure from the House and from the people outside it what the Government have in mind.
    I have no doubt that the way in which the legislation would be taken through the House was planned well before hon. Members had had a chance to hear the Budget statement. These are serious matters, and not only for the small businesses that will be badly hit. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) talked about the average costs to small businesses, but that is not the point. If a business employs only five people and two of them are ill for a long time, that is not an average cost. It is a devastating cost—one that the business will not be able to meet.
    Vital though they are, small businesses will not be the only ones affected. Millions of people who are looking for work will be equally affected. By coincidence, I received a letter in today's post from a constituent, a former shipyard worker aged 58 who cannot find employment. He suffers from a heart condition, but not badly enough to qualify for invalidity benefit under the current rules, let alone for incapacity benefit under the rules to be introduced in a year's time. His prospects of finding work are bad enough at the moment; what are his chances of getting a job when every employer who will ever interview him will look at his health record and decide that he is going to become, at some point, a 100 per cent. cost to the wages bill?
    Three million other people are looking for work, and such employers will obviously take on those who have not been ill recently. The legislation will mean that thousands of people who are capable of work but who are not in perfect health will fall into the limbo between invalidity benefit and work: they cannot get work because they have poor health, but they cannot get benefits because they are
    876
    not judged sick enough to be unable to work. Yet the Government want to push this measure through in six hours.
    A Conservative description of the Bill was that it was a mundane measure. Will it be a mundane measure for my 58-year-old constituent, who has had enough doors slammed in his face without this one being slammed in it, too?
    Our insurance salesman, the Secretary of State for Social Security, spoke touchingly to the House in his benefits statement. Describing the impact of the legislation on employers, he said:
    "those who respond to the incentive to improve staff health will benefit even more."—[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
    What a wonderful image that conjures up. One thinks of employers, in response to the new legislation, deciding to expand their occupational health service—perhaps installing a gym, like the one in the House, to keep members of staff fit. One imagines them screening all their employees to make sure that they never get sick, thereby reducing their sick pay bills. The House can believe that if it chooses, but it is not how employers will see the measure. It will not be an incentive to improving the health of their staff. Over time, they will merely begin screening out those whose health poses a danger of an increased pay bill.
    For smaller businesses to which staff sickness can represent a crippling cost, the legislation will mean being caught both ways. They will not want to turn people away or to get rid of staff who have been unfortunate enough to be ill, but when they are looking at their balance sheets and deciding between that and bankruptcy, some will decide to shed staff. The Government are pushing such companies into this position in a matter of six hours. That is an abuse of Parliament. I have been here only a short time, but I cannot believe that that is a way to run the country.
    6.18 pm
    Mr. Alan Duncan: I listened closely to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and before that to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Like the latter, I have a lasting faith in the paramount importance of parliamentary procedure, of Parliament itself and of the manner in which we scrutinise legislation. I suggest that my hon. Friend's impassioned pleas, although well directed in general, were misdirected in the context of the measures that we are debating today.
    I have watched the proceedings of the House for well over 20 years. As a young teenager, spurred on by politics and wanting to be in this Chamber, I became interested in how the House of Commons works.
    When I was between school and university, I watched the debate on the guillotine on the proposal to nationalise the shipbuilding industry. That guillotine caused absolute uproar and the then Opposition fought tooth and nail against the then Labour Government. I recall the battles in Committee led by my right hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The Conservative Opposition kept the Labour Government on a knife edge. The then Opposition fought against that guillotine for good reason. It was a good reason not only because they believed in what they were doing but because

    877
    what they were doing, they were doing well. I shall explain why that distinguishes their behaviour from that of today's Opposition.
    Mr. John Hutton: Was that guillotine motion before or after the Bill's Second Reading?
    Mr. Duncan: I readily admit that it was after the Bill's Second Reading, but that measure was different from the one that we are discussing today. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that the nature of the Opposition and their failure properly to scrutinise legislation whenever they have the chance irks him more than the guillotine motion.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend is wrong.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Mr. Duncan: I should be happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
    Mr. Marlow: We do not live in a perfect world. We should all know about every detail of legislation before we debate it but, as my hon. Friend knows, in reality, about 2 per cent. of us know what is happening at any one time. If a Bill is given a Second Reading before the guillotine motion, at least there is a tiny chance that an element of the House of Commons will know what is being put before it. If a Bill is guillotined before Second Reading, what chance does the legislature have of scrutinising it properly?
    Mr. Duncan: Before my hon. Friend goes pop, may I say that most of what we are considering is a continuation of existing legislation rather than—as with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977—completely new legislation.
    We have witnessed synthetic rage from the Opposition —it is a cover-up on the part of the Labour party to disguise its problems. The Leader of the Opposition is at war not with us but with his own Whips. For evidence of that one need look no further than at the Opposition's attendance today to see that fewer than 30 Opposition Members were present to hear the speech of their deputy leader. There are now fewer than six of them present.
    Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that fact, because, when my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House were making their speeches, there were twice as many Opposition Members as Conservative Members—I know that because I deliberately counted them. There are more Conservative Members than Opposition Members, so the percentage of Opposition Members present was huge compared to that of Conservative Members.
    Mr. Duncan: There are moments when I will readily defer to a former schoolteacher, but counting the hon. Members now present suggests that the hon. Gentleman is heavily outnumbered.
    I would rather have a good Opposition on whom the Government could more readily sharpen their blade. The arguments against the guillotine are not matched by the Labour party's efforts while in opposition. If all Labour Members were here more often and they had challenged the very life of the Government by their energy and procedural skill and had shown due diligence in their
    878
    scrutiny of legislation in the past, they might have begun to have a case against the timetable motion—but they did not do that.
    I have been a member of two Standing Committees in the past year—those on the Finance Bill and the Railways Bill. I marvelled at the poor manner in which Opposition Members scrutinised the Finance Bill. I was appalled, as many were, by the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) rarely even turned up for discussions on the Railways Bill. The Opposition's poor record of scrutiny constitutes no basis for challenging today's timetable motion.
    The two Bills that we are discussing are each only two pages long. The Social Security (Contributions) Bill was announced in March and we have not heard much from the Opposition since then. Indeed, their silence in the intervening months has been deafening. In terms of its significance, the Bill ranks with many a clause in any Finance Bill, but it happens to require primary legislation. The principles behind it are long established and have been debated in the House many times before.
    As for the national insurance fund, as Nye Bevan said in 1946, "There ain't no fund." As we all know, the national insurance fund is a pay-as-you go fund and contributions should, wherever possible, reflect the cost of the benefits being paid from it. The fund does not have borrowing powers; in order to make up any deficit, it requires a Treasury grant. The insurance fund should be paid by those who are in work, not by all taxpayers.
    That principle is lost on the Opposition, as is evidenced by their wish to abolish the upper earnings limit for contributions. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) makes his wind-up speech, will he tell us why such a proposal to abolish the upper earnings limit is acceptable when it makes nonsense of the contributory principle, because it will not lead to any corresponding increase in benefit for those who are asked to contribute more to the fund? The Bill is a straightforward adjustment to a well-established system and is being timetabled with full justification.
    The other two-page Bill is the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, which is also straightforward. It involves a rebalancing of the obligations and entitlements between small and large employers. Large employers will lose their right to recover 80 per cent. of statutory sick pay. They can afford to do so because they can generally insure themselves against such an occurrence. Smaller employers—and, because of the Bill, many more of them—ill be able to secure full reimbursement and for a greater amount.
    Much of the system was set up by the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, about which a House of Commons Library brief stated:
    "The Bill made rapid progress through the Commons with the Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading taking place on the Floor of the House".
    The views on the rapid passage of that Bill do not match the outrage that we have heard about the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
    I share many of the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I believe that it is perfectly legitimate for the two short, straightforward Bills to be guillotined.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend accept that, of the two measures, one received five days in

    879
    the House and the other six days in the course of this year's two Budgets? Does that not make the case for a guillotine before Second Reading so much stronger?
    Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
    The apparent rage of the Opposition is entirely false. As this week's figures clearly show, their attendance rate is hopeless. Their attention to detail is lamentable and their discipline appears to be non-existent. The day that they apply themselves properly to their parliamentary duty will be the day that I join them in the Lobby to oppose such a guillotine motion.
    6.27 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is not noted for his humility. He may be a clever person—I am in no position to judge—but I predict that he will not have a popular career in the House if he makes speeches of such arrogance and self-righteousness.
    I shall put in short order the Opposition's reasons for objecting to the guillotine motion. The facts of the motion are brutal enough so there is no need for me to use extravagant language. First, we object because of the lack of consultation before the motion was tabled. There has been much talk about the breakdown in the usual channels. In a real and important sense, the usual channels broke down the day the guillotine motion appeared on the Order Paper. No attempt was made by the Department of Social Security—certainly as far as I know—to discuss or consult about the Bill's passage.
    I make that point—and if I had the high standards of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, it might be thought that I was confessing a sin—because I do not think that, while I have been shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, anyone could say that I have taken an unreasonable attitude to the business of the House.
    The Minister of State will remember when the House considered the 1992 Social Security Bill. I do not make any petty party political point, but that legislation was urgently needed because the national insurance fund was 20 per cent. short of the funds required to meet its obligations, and on the statute book there was a rather optimistic Government provision to stop any subvention by the Treasury to the fund. When I was approached about the Bill I took the view that it was not a contentious matter as we all wanted to ensure that money was available to pay out the various benefits and pensions. I readily agreed to taking all the stages on the Floor of the House in one day. I do not think that anyone can accuse the Opposition of always looking for trench warfare.
    I especially regret what has happened in this case. When the Leader of the House spoke last Friday, in an unscheduled but useful debate, he said:
    "Despite what was said earlier, there is nothing particularly unusual about the motion, although I accept that the situation more usually arises when there has been agreement in the usual channels to deal with such things rapidly. That is not the background in this case."—[Official Report, 10 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 645.]
    If we are talking of declarations of war, it is reasonable to ask the Minister to explain why that is not the background in this case. Why was there no attempt to reach agreement on how we might properly and decently deal with the
    880
    business? It would not necessarily have been difficult to reach agreement. I cannot predict what course the negotiations might have followed, but I take severe exception to the fact that no approach was made and there was no attempt to reach agreement.
    Perhaps it is because I am now reaching the veteran stage, but I have a certain amount of sympathy with those who want agreed timetables for Bills. However, timetables imply agreement, and there is a great difference between a timetable and a guillotine motion. If there had been an attempt to timetable by agreement, such an accommodation might have been possible—but unfortunately that is not what happened. Instead, we were faced with a lack of consultation and the unusual appearance, in form at least, of a guillotine motion before Second Reading. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) also made that point.
    I am well aware that all Government business managers can be driven to introduce guillotines. I did my little bit in contributing to the driving process in my earlier days in this place. I accept that, if there is an open-ended Committee stage, with ingenious and long-winded Members filling column after column of Hansard, it may reach a point where the Government, to preserve their business or even to protect the House, must introduce a guillotine motion. However, that is very different from doing so at this stage of a Bill.
    I can speak only for myself, and I took the view that there had been no attempt to reach agreement. The appearance on the Order Paper of an unusual, severe and restrictive guillotine motion means government by diktat and government by fiat—something about which we were both entitled and had a duty to protest.
    Mr. Garnier: For present purposes, I fully accept that the Opposition feel that the timetable motion is a constitutional abomination. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the conduct of his party during proceedings on the Railways Bill? Is not there something a little hollow about his hon. Friends' objections to the timetable motion on these Bills when during the proceedings on the Railways Bill Labour Back Benchers, aided and abetted by senior Members of the Opposition Whips Office, obstructed the Lobbies, locked the lavatories and inhibited the work of the Serjeant at Arms in clearing the Lobbies? In addition, the Opposition's Tellers miscounted the votes. Do I have the facts right or wrong?
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman's account of that incident is highly coloured. I certainly do not recognise the details that he described. In any case, there is no parallel between what happens under the pressure of a specific circumstance when a vote is called and the buttressing of an unfortunate constitutional precedent, which has been rightly criticised by Conservative Members. The view that we take of the one does not exculpate those responsible for the other. What we are now discussing is of much greater significance.
    My second point is that the timetable motion is not only unusual but unreasonable. We are being allowed only six hours of debate. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made the point that every time we vote, whether on Second Reading or during the truncated Committee stage, a quarter of an hour will be taken out of the six-hour allocation. That is a thoroughly unreasonable proposition.

    881
    The Leader of the House will remember the last time that we considered a statutory sick pay Bill in 1990. He opened the debate on that Bill, which was a direct parallel of the current Bill. In fact, it had three clauses, but in effect it had only one, whose purpose was to reduce the rebate from 107 per cent.—7 per cent. was for administrative expenses—to 80 per cent. The Hansard of that debate shows that we had a whole day for Second Reading because the Bill was considered to deal with a major issue. Indeed, the Front Bench speeches took one hour and 53 minutes. More than half the total time being allowed for Second Reading of the current Bill was spent on the two opening speeches on that Bill. Of that one hour and 53 minutes, the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to take one hour and 14 minutes.
    I am not criticising the Leader of the House, who is not noted for being unnecessarily long-winded. The reason why he took one hour and 14 minutes on such a radical Bill, reducing the rebate from 100 to 80 per cent. as opposed to total abolition, was that he had to deal with an enormous number of interruptions from Conservative Members. The hon. Members for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls), for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)—she is in her place—for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Newark (Mr. Alexander) all expressed fundamental concern about the impact that the Bill would have in their constituencies. There was no doubt in their minds that it was a matter that had to be probed and examined in great detail and with genuine concern.
    Indeed, the hon. Member for Lancaster made a good point with which I was unfamiliar, but which I suspect may arise again, about the impact of changes in the SSP scheme on agriculture. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's lengthy and complicated opening speech was dictated in part by the anxieties expressed in every part of the House.
    Against that experience it is dangerous to suggest that the current Bill should go through the House with just three hours for Second Reading and three hours for Committee stage. That is especially so given that that is being done at a time in the parliamentary Session when one would not expect it to be necessary. I recognise that the Minister of State may say that the real villain of the piece is the unified Budget, that we are near the start of the new financial year and so on, but I do not think that that is any justification. We have a duty to do the job properly. The general argument needs to be stressed because I concede that this is a narrow and technical measure.
    Mr. Marlow: Under normal procedure, a Bill has a Second Reading, which generates a debate in the country. That might lead to people suggesting amendments. After this week, after the guillotine and after the Bill has passed through its stages, if there is a debate in the country on what occasion might the House be able to amend the Bill?
    Mr. Dewar: There may be some minor opportunity if the other place takes an interest in the measure. We had a substantial debate, lasting some hours, on Lords amendments to the previous statutory sick pay legislation. But it is very odd if we have to rely on the other place to create a rather limited and restricted opportunity to consider the consequences of what we do in the way that I have suggested. Apart from technical scrutiny—apart from the traditional role—we should be answering, reflecting, examining and analysing public concerns. That is an important point.
    882
    For the purposes of this debate, I am prepared to concede that the Government may have good answers to existing concerns, but the important point is how widespread those concerns are and how many of them are felt by organisations that would usually take the Government's word for it without question or argument. It may not be surprising that, for example, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has written to hon. Members expressing a great deal of anxiety, but, as hon. Members will be aware if they have been following their mail, the Federation of Small Businesses has specifically urged Members of Parliament to impose this restrictive procedure—the guillotine motion that we are considering.
    The Forum of Private Business, which I seldom find myself quoting on anything, has expressed its concern and says:
    "Current proposals if implemented are likely to become the principal cause of a significant number of insolvencies."
    That fear may be unfounded, but we shall in any case have mighty little opportunity to deal with it and, if the Minister is successful, to remove it, in the course of the six hours allocated to us. I can go on and mention the CBI and the Institute of Directors. All those organisations have expressed their concern about what is being done. It is an important matter and is clearly seen as such outside.
    The idea of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that this was humdrum legislation—
    Mr. Duncan: I did not say that.
    Mr. Dewar: It must have been one of the hon. Gentleman's clones. What has happened on the Conservative Benches in the past year or two has been like an outbreak of garden gnomes in a residential suburb. One Conservative Member managed the thought that this was humdrum legislation and his mind was on higher things. All I can say is that it is clear that the mind of British industry, employers and employees, is firmly centred on these proposals and there are concerns.
    After all, the Social Security (Contributions) Bill raises £1·9 billion for the Chancellor—about £300 million more than would be raised by putting 1p on the standard rate of income tax. Conservative Members may say that the breaking of election promises is somewhat devalued now as a cause for concern and anger, but it is worth reminding the House that that is exactly what this proposition amounts to.
    In addition, the Statutory Sick Pay Bill transfers £750 billion as a burden on to British industry at a time when we are trying to keep it competitive. The Minister says, "Oh no, it is offset by reductions in employers' contributions. There is no need to worry." I want to look at the small print, but I shall have little opportunity to do so because—a point that I stress—the Bill does not deal with offsetting, so it is impossible to table amendments dealing with it.
    The Minister says, "Oh, don't worry about that, there will be orders." Those orders will be debated in one and a half hours and cannot be amended, yet this is an essential part of a package that we are expected to accept as a whole. There is another question. If this is to be a neutral package, why are we putting through all these administrative changes to achieve neutrality? That brings us to the argument that was effectively dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—I

    883
    almost said Portsmouth, which I am sure would have been an unkind cut—about the impact on the employability of those with a sickness record.
    Part of the defence is that this is a package, but that takes us on to the job seeker's allowance and incapacity benefit—into what seems to be a challenge to, or at least an undermining of, the contributory principle, because young people will be asked to pay more of the contributions bill but will receive less because of the other measures that the Government are introducing.
    Those are major issues and major public concerns, yet there is to be no consultation and what I can fairly and properly describe as a vindictive timetable is being imposed, giving no real opportunity to reflect that anger or to probe the consequences, many of which are hidden in the Bill.
    Take for example, the interesting change in the retirement age in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, which is now defined as 65, which means that women between the ages of 60 and 65 will, presumably, be able to have statutory sick pay and draw their retirement pension. In case I am open to misinterpretation, I make it clear that I am not opposed to that, but it is important that we consider the knock-on effect and consequences of that.
    Anyone who has considered the complicated litigation to which invalidity benefit has given rise, such as the case of Mrs. Rose Graham—I see the Minister flinch and I can well understand why—will realise that genuine complications may arise from a decision with which we shall have to live until 2020 but which will not be probed here or, as I understand it, in any other forum, at least in the House, and that is unfortunate.
    I would welcome a constructive debate, but we shall not have that as a result of what has been given to us at the moment. I never wanted the Bills to have a long-drawn-out Committee stage. I would have been happy to talk turkey on that with the Government, but I object to the proceedings being guillotined as though I had been a bad boy, a recidivist with a record, before Second Reading is even reached.
    This is a petty, damaging, corner-cutting measure. It is bad for the Opposition, but it is also bad for the Government and bad for Parliament. I recognise that this could be represented as just a spat, just a disagreement between the usual channels—friction at the interface between the Front Benches. But the dispute goes further than that. We are setting unfortunate precedents for the future health of our parliamentary system.
    One or two people have said to me, "Why bother? The Government will do it anyway. They will bulldoze the Bills through the House and there is nothing that you can do about it." But it is not the job of a parliamentary Opposition to shrug resignedly and say, "So be it." We are right to protest. I recognise that the Government have the votes and—with one or two honourable exceptions—I have no doubt that their supporters will secure them a majority in the Lobby tonight.
    In spite of that—this may be the eternal optimist in me —I feel that there should be, and perhaps will be, some right hon. and hon. Members who, when they go home tonight, will look back at the lack of justification, need or special circumstance in terms of a threat to the good government of the House or the preservation of the
    884
    Government's business. Those hon. Members may well want to question whether, if they have been through the Government Lobby, they have done a good night's work.
    6.48 pm
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I start on a friendly and, I hope, conciliatory note by saying to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), sitting as he is beside the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that, in my six and a half years dealing with social security, my dealings with him or his predecessor have always been friendly and reasonable in the extreme.
    I am not familiar with the workings of the usual channels, but I am convinced that if we are to put the legislation on the statute book in good time for those outside the House who have to deal with its consequences and do it in an orderly and proper manner, time is of the essence.
    I can understand the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) spoke. We have had similar exchanges on previous occasions. I understand that he has a fundamental philosophical objection to the use of timetable motions to put legislation through the House according to a particular timetable. I hope that I can persuade him, not least because he expressed concern for small businesses in his constituency, that it is essential that we get the legislation on to the statute book as soon as possible.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to finish the sentence, I shall give way. However, because of the time limit, I shall not give way frequently.
    I hope that I can convince my hon. Friend that it is in the interests of precisely the small businesses for which he speaks, which are so close to his heart, to put the legislation on to the statute book as soon as possible.
    Mr. Enright: Can the Minister explain to me—because I do not understand—why it would cause considerable administrative difficulties to come in for two or three days next week? It does not seem to me that two or three days matter very much.
    Mr. Scott: That is not what we are discussing today. That matter could have been raised by the Opposition on other occasions. I seem to recall that it was raised by some hon. Members below the Gangway, but we are now working against the fact that the House will rise at the end of this week. We have to get the legislation through, not least in the interests of businesses—especially small businesses—which will have to deal with the consequences of what we intend to do.
    Mr. Marlow: It has been said that this place is becoming something of a mockery and that our laws are made either by barter in Brussels or by guillotine in this House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he is a reasonable man. He said that he will agree a proper process to get the Bill through quickly. Can I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, in the interests of the reputation of the House and the Government, he takes the hon. Gentleman at his word and has a discussion with him? If the hon. Gentleman is pulling the wool over my right hon. Friend's eyes, let the public as a whole know. Give it a try.
    Mr. Scott: We are too late for that approach. It certainly would not be for me to make that approach to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that it is right to get on with the business of translating into law the Bills to which the timetable motion applies so that businesses know where they are and will be able to implement properly the arrangements from next April.
    Of course I am aware that there is anxiety among employers about the changes to statutory sick pay. I remind hon. Members and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that, when we were designing the pattern of provision in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, we paid particular attention to the needs of small businesses. Full recompense will be given through reductions to national insurance contributions which will be made by order in due course.
    That will more than compensate industry as a whole for the impact of the changes to SSP. The extent of the compensation will be in excess of £100 million a year of extra support for businesses. The arrangements have tilted that extra help specifically in the direction of small businesses to help them at a time when the economy is coming out of recession and embarking on what I believe will be a sustained recovery.
    So employers will not be out of pocket. They will be in pocket under the statutory sick pay proposals and the proposal to introduce offsetting arrangements to reduce employers' national insurance contributions. All that will come into effect by next April. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill also contains other measures, some of which were mentioned in the debate. The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the Bill will extend the SSP scheme to working women over the age of 60. Obviously, we shall have to look at some of the details of that provision. However, I am sure that it will be widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It will enable us to comply with the equal treatment directive and it will be another step along the road of equality.
    I wish to expand a little on the remarks that I made about small firms. The Budget as a whole was a considerable help to small businesses. The new arrangements for auditing, some of the arrangements for capital gains and, outside the impact of the Budget, the Government's efforts towards deregulation and lifting the burdens from businesses, especially small businesses, are some of the notable achievements of this Administration.
    Let us look at the effect on small firms of the SSP legislation, if it reaches the statute book in its present form. A small firm—one with less than £20,000 of national insurance contributions—with five employees and an average sickness rate would gain an annual cost saving of £140 if the average earnings of the five employees were £90 a week, of £244 if the average earnings were £130 a week and of some £400 if the average earnings were £190 a week. We have deliberately sought to tilt in the direction of smaller businesses the help that will be available to offset the impact of the changes.
    Anyone who has studied sickness absence rates in Britain knows that there is a great deal of scope for improvement if employers can be encouraged to seek such improvement. The interaction of the SSP provisions and the reductions in national insurance contribution will give employers that encouragement. The Audit Commission has done work in the London boroughs, which had a high level of absenteeism due to sickness. It found that most
    886
    boroughs could make management much more directly responsible for managing absence by giving senior management clear responsibilities and commitments.
    The boroughs provided appropriate information and trained their managers to give more attention to staff welfare. As a result of those measures alone the average level of sickness absence fell from 17 days to 11·5 days a year. The average level of absence among manual workers was fewer than 15 days and absence among office staff also fell. Some ·11 million a year was saved. That has been reflected in other parts of our economy, including manufacturing industry. I have no doubt that, if people are given the right incentive, we have a clear possibility of vastly improving the sickness absence record of employees in Britain.
    We need to have the Bill on the statute book by February. The legislation needs to receive Royal Assent well before it takes effect in April 1994. We must allow time for other measures such as the national insurance contributions re-rating order and the proposed enhancements to the statutory sick pay small employers' relief provisions to be introduced and debated in the House and in another place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security aims to leave plenty of time to deal with secondary legislation in the new year.
    Mrs. Beckett: The Minister is explaining the information that is available to the House. I understand from the Public Accounts Committee report that a review has recently been carried out on the impact on businesses of the reduction in reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. That review was completed in the summer. It has not been published. I have inquired why it has not been published and I have been told that it is in the hands of Ministers. As the Minister has made it clear that he is anxious that there should be proper debate, will he put the review in the Library before the debate tomorrow?
    Mr. Scott: I cannot do that. The review will be published in the near future. I do not know the precise arrangements, but the document is in the pipeline for publication. Although I have not read it, I am advised that none of the findings support the arguments that have been made across the Floor of the House. I will have a look at the matter, but I do not think that we shall have it ready for the debate tomorrow. Perhaps before the secondary legislation is debated in the new year it might be possible to make such arrangements so that the House can at least be better informed.
    We need secondary legislation to be debated so that we can fully bring the policy into effect. We must also allow the Contributions Agency to advise all employers of the changes that will affect them. Employers must be told by the end of February, if orderly introduction of the new arrangements is to take place and they are to make changes to their payrolls and administrative arrangements.
    I hope that I have convinced the House that the urgency of putting the SSP provisions on to the statute book is well proven.
    Following the passage of the Bills, affirmative instruments will be required. The re-rating order, statutory sick pay regulations for small employers' relief and the main social security uprating order and a number of associated instruments will be necessary.
    I shall work backwards from 6 April, which is the date by which both Bills plus affirmative orders for contribution

    887
    re-rating and benefits uprating and consequental regulations need to be law. My right hon. Friend adopted that procedure, but, in order to assist the House, I shall do so in slightly more detail.
    By mid-March we must lay consequential regulations to allow 21 days before the effective date of 6 April. Earlier in March the Lords will debate the affirmative orders. That means that we shall have to deal with them in February and must have the usual breaks between consideration in the two Houses.
    It is essential for the Bill to pass all its stages in the House before we rise this weekend and hon. Members should be quite clear about the consequences if the motion fails. Depending on progress, the Department of Social Security will have to issue to employers in February some 1·2 million sets of new contribution tables with on the cover the endorsement, "Subject to parliamentary approval".
    That will create a great deal of uncertainty for business and will generate many inquiries because employers will telephone the Contributions Agency to see when they can rely on the rates being certain. That would cause confusion, especially to small employers, who depend on advice from the Contributions Agency. The implications would be serious.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) asked about personal pensions. That issue is not directly related to the matter being considered today, but it is causing some concern. We are satisfied that the programme of action that was announced by the Securities and Investments Board is the appropriate way to tackle the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman. People should be assured that there is no need for current personal pension investors to take any precipitate action. Those who have questions about personal pensions should get in touch with their pension provider.
    The Government expect remedies to be put in place for all investors who have been disadvantaged as a result of poor advice, and we are convinced that personal pensions are an excellent way of saving for income in retirement.
    I shall now deal with other aspects of the legislation that will pass in due course. The legislation makes provision for national health service allocations. We have been advised that it is necessary to include new legislation about that so as to rectify the situation and to put beyond doubt the legal provisions on the calculation of the amount of national insurance that is passed to the national health service. That does not affect overall expenditure on the NHS, nor does it affect in any way entitlement to health service treatment. The Bill also includes provision affecting class 4 contributions and personal pensions. As the House knows, such pensions have been available for rather more than five years.
    Few hon. Members are in any doubt about the reason for the debate. It has nothing to do with ensuring proper debate of the measures covered by the timetable motion. Effectively, each measure has one operative clause and the provision of six hours for each of the two Bills is ample. The debate has more to do with the Opposition's need to cover their incompetence in the Budget debate and, in particular, their sin of omission about VAT on fuel. The
    888
    Opposition's enthusiasm was demonstrated by the fact that when the debate opened there were but 12 Opposition Members in the House. It may be—
    It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81.
    The House divided Ayes 307, Noes 266.

    Division No. 31]

    [7.04 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Day, Stephen

    Alexander, Richard

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Dicks, Terry

    Amess, David

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Ancram, Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dover, Den

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Duncan, Alan

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Ashby, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Eggar, Tim

    Baldry, Tony

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bates, Michael

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Evennett, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Faber, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fabricant, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Booth, Hartley

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Boswell, Tim

    Forman, Nigel

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bowden, Andrew

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bowis, John

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    French, Douglas

    Brazier, Julian

    Fry, Peter

    Bright, Graham

    Gale, Roger

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gallie, Phil

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Garnier, Edward

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Burns, Simon

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Burt, Alistair

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Butcher, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Butler, Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Butterfill, John

    Gorst, John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Cash, William

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Churchill, Mr

    Hague, William

    Clappison, James

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hannam, Sir John

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Colvin, Michael

    Harris, David

    Congdon, David

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Conway, Derek

    Hawkins, Nick

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Heald, Oliver

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hendry, Charles

    Couchman, James

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cran, James

    Hicks, Robert

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

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    889

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Horam, John

    Page, Richard

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Paice, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

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

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Pawsey, James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Powell, William(Corby)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Richards, Rod

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Robathan, Andrew

    Key, Robert

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knapman, Roger

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

    Sackville, Tom

    Knox, Sir David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Legg, Barry

    Shersby, Michael

    Leigh, Edward

    Sims, Roger

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lidington, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Luff, Peter

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spink, Dr Robert

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spring, Richard

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sproat, Iain

    Maclean, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    Madel, David

    Stephen, Michael

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stern, Michael

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan

    Malone, Gerald

    Streeter, Gary

    Mans, Keith

    Sumberg, David

    Marland, Paul

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sykes, John

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mates, Michael

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Thomason, Roy

    Merchant, Piers

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mills, Iain

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Tracey, Richard

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Tredinnick, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trend, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trotter, Neville

    Needham, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nelson, Anthony

    Vaughan, Sir Gerald

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Walden, George

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waller, Gary

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Ward, John

    Norris, Steve

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Waterson, Nigel

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Watts, John

    890

    Wells, Bowen

    Wolfson, Mark

    Whitney, Ray

    Wood, Timothy

    Whittingdale, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wilkinson, John

    Willetts, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wilshire, David

    Mr David Lightbown and

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dobson, Frank

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Ainger, Nick

    Dowd, Jim

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Allen, Graham

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Eastham, Ken

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Enright, Derek

    Ashton, Joe

    Etherington, Bill

    Austin-Walker, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Barnes, Harry

    Fatchett, Derek

    Barron, Kevin

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Battle, John

    Fisher, Mark

    Bayley, Hugh

    Flynn, Paul

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Foulkes, George

    Bell, Stuart

    Fraser, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Gapes, Mike

    Benton, Joe

    Garrett, John

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    George, Bruce

    Betts, Clive

    Gerrard, Neil

    Blair, Tony

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Blunkett, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Boateng, Paul

    Godsiff, Roger

    Boyes, Roland

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bradley, Keith

    Gould, Bryan

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Graham, Thomas

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burden, Richard

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Byers, Stephen

    Grocott, Bruce

    Caborn, Richard

    Gunnell, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hardy, Peter

    Canavan, Dennis

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Cann, Jamie

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clelland, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Coffey, Ann

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cohen, Harry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hutton, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Illsley, Eric

    Cummings, John

    Ingram, Adam

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Janner, Greville

    Darling, Alistair

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jowell, Tessa

    Dixon, Don

    Keen, Alan

    891

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Purchase, Ken

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Radice, Giles

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Randall, Stuart

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Redmond, Martin

    Leighton, Ron

    Reid, Dr John

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rendel, David

    Lewis, Terry

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Litherland, Robert

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rogers, Allan

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rooney, Terry

    McAllion, John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rowlands, Ted

    McCartney, Ian

    Ruddock, Joan

    Macdonald, Calum

    Salmond, Alex

    McFall, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McGrady, Eddie

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McKelvey, William

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Short, Clare

    McLeish, Henry

    Simpson, Alan

    McNamara, Kevin

    Skinner, Dennis

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Madden, Max

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

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

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

    Mahon, Alice

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Snape, Peter

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Soley, Clive

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Martlew, Eric

    Spellar, John

    Maxton, John

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Meacher, Michael

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Michael, Alun

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Stevenson, George

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Stott, Roger

    Milburn, Alan

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Miller, Andrew

    Straw, Jack

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Morley, Elliot

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Turner, Dennis

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Tyler, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wallace, James

    Mudie, George

    Walley, Joan

    Mullin, Chris

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wareing, Robert N

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Watson, Mike

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Welsh, Andrew

    O'Hara, Edward

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Olner, William

    Wigley, Dafydd

    O'Neill, Martin

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Parry, Robert

    Wilson, Brian

    Patchett, Terry

    Winnick, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Wise, Audrey

    Pickthall, Colin

    Worthington, Tony

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wray, Jimmy

    Pope, Greg

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Prescott, John

    Mr. Alan Meale and

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Mr. Gordon McMaster.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill:
    Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Statutory Sick Pay Bill
    1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill shall be completed at the sitting on 15th December.
    (2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement, and the
    892
    proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading.
    (3) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
    (4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
    (5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
    Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Social Security

    (Contributions) Bill
    2.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Social Security (Contributions) Bill shall be completed at the sitting on 16th December.
    (2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement, and the proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading.
    (3) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
    (4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
    (5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.

    Conclusion of proceedings
    3.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on either Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2.
    (2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Speaker or Chairman 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;

    (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

    (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

    (3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    (4) If on 15th or 16th December 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 and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

    (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and

    (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings 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.

    4. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
    Dilatory Motions
    5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on either Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    Extra Time
    6. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill at the sitting on 15th December and to proceedings on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill at the sitting on 16th December.

    Supplemental orders
    7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
    (2) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or if any sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings 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 Minister of the crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order.

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

    Recommittal
    9.—(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 either Bill to which this Order applies (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.

Fisheries
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 6272/92, relating to food hygiene on board fishing vessels; 5441/93, relating to European fisheries research; 4158/93, relating to fisheries: Spain and Portugal; 7047/93 relating to fisheries: Ireland; 9123/93, relating to fisheries: Spain and Portugal; 9285/93 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 10th December, relating to fishing licences; 10194/92, relating to industrial fisheries: North Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat; 11194/92, relating to industrial fisheries: North Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat; and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19th February 1993, relating to fisheries: Norway.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Minister to move the motion I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
7.19 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9662/93, relating to guide prices for fishery products 1994, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th December 1993 relating to total allowable catches and quotas for 1994, the Sixth Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1992-93 on the effects of conservation measures on the United Kingdom sea fishing industry (House of Commons Paper No. 620) and the Government's Response thereto contained in the Fifth Special Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1992-93 (House of Commons Paper No. 927); and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1994 consistent with the requirements of conservation of fish stocks.
As the winter weather is upon us, it is timely that we should reflect for a moment on the hazardous nature of the fishing industry. Many fishermen run considerable risks with their own lives and, obviously, the livelihoods of their families when they proceed with what is a risky business. I know that, from time to time, the House has properly shown its deep concern when tragedies affect the fishing communities around our shores. I am always conscious of that concern when I deal with fishery matters.
This will be a wide-ranging debate on fisheries issues, and I should like to pay tribute to our fisheries inspectors, and to the Royal Navy, which, in all weathers, carries out its task of enforcing our common fisheries policy with great professionalism and skill. The House may be interested to know that it is my intention in the new year to visit one of Her Majesty's vessels on protection duty to learn more about the way in which it carries out its duties.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister has paid a tribute to the men who work so hard in the fisheries industry. Does he recall that this week is the third anniversary of the loss of six men from my constituency in the Premier disaster?
Does he agree that one of our responsibilities as legislators is to ensure that the fishing industry has a viable future, and that all safety aspects are regarded as critical?
Mr. Jack: I endorse what the hon. Lady has said. None of us could forget the tragedy to which she referred. I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Lady was right to refer to safety. She will be aware that, some months

895
ago in Committee, I announced the resumption of grants for safety measures. I also indicated our willingness to consider the implications of work being undertaken by the Department of Transport for vessels below 12 m.
I started by referring to the fishermen themselves, precisely because they and the communities in which they live and work lie at the heart of all our considerations. Since I took over responsibility for this area of policy, I have been greatly assisted by the many messages that I have received from hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies. I am sure that some of them will make their own contributions this evening, but fear that my hon. Friend the Member Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will be unable to do so. In her own way, she has singularly communicated the particular needs of her fishermen. She has also done singular service in ensuring that I am kept abreast of the feelings of many right hon. and hon. Members on this subject.
This debate is an annual one. It is important, because it provides an opportunity to prepare for the December meeting of the Fisheries Council, which will begin on Sunday in Brussels. It is at that meeting that the decisions on next year's total allowable catches and quotas will be made.
The debate also gives me the opportunity to outline the Government's position on fishing policy, in the light of the outcome of the recent court case brought by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. In addition to deciding on the total allowable catches and quotas, the Council will also consider the important Commission proposal concerning the Spanish and Portuguese accession arrangements. The debate also affords the House the opportunity to discuss the valuable report on fishing policy from the Select Committee on Agriculture.
As always, some of the Commission's proposals have only just become available, because they must be based on the most up-to-date scientific advice. I know that that means that, unfortunately, there has been little time for the Scrutiny Committee or hon. Members to study them. I believe that hon. Members understand such matters sufficiently well, however, to make an appraisal on the information available to them.
During the summer, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I visited our major fishing centres. We covered the United Kingdom in a genuine attempt to understand some of the issues that affect the fishing industry around our shores. I learned a great deal about that industry, and about the men and women who work in it. I also learned about the importance to those communities of a viable fishing industry.
Differences of opinion may be expressed in the debate about how we should achieve the viability objective, but there is no doubt about our common cause in trying to find a way forward for the long-term future of the industry. I approach the debate in a genuine spirit of co-operation. I want to listen carefully to the views of right hon. and hon. Members. I also want to listen to the representations by the industry, because it is important that we try to recognise the common problem caused by trying to conserve fish stocks for the good of the industry.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the interests of fishermen, may I make a plea for greater co-operation among Departments? Following
896
the tragic loss of the Antares, fine co-operation exists off the west coast of Scotland among fishermen and those mariners who sail the nuclear submarines. More needs to be done.
At this moment, a gas pipe is being installed between the south of Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the interests of the fishermen have been disregarded. Is it the case that part of that pipeline will be laid on top of the seabed and not in a trench? That decision is of considerable importance to the fishermen who work those waters. Similarly, with the abandonment of pipeline networks, as a result of the workings of the Petroleum Act 1987, much more consultation with our fishermen needs to be undertaken.
Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for displaying his customary courtesy in putting his views to me. We have debated matters connected with the Antares in Committee, and I know that he was satisfied with the response that I gave at that time. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies to the debate, I shall ask him to deal specifically with pipelines. Suffice it to say that there is considerable dialogue between those in the offshore gas industry and the fishing industry.
Mr. Alex Salmond: When the Minister undertook his trip around the coastline to the various fishing ports, he must have become aware that, although there was huge opposition to the legislation governing days at sea, there was general support for the decommissioning package: the fishermen's only criticism was that it did not go far enough. When the Minister announced his response to the court reversal, why on earth did he say that the Government would suspend decommissioning after this year in addition to suspending the requirements governing days at sea? Is that really an example of the Government listening to the fishing industry?
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated certain passages in my speech. I will say something about that decision later, when I will be happy to take a further intervention from him.
Mrs. Ewing: During business questions on Thursday, my party specifically asked for a clear statement to be made on the days-at-sea arrangements. We then read in the national press on Friday morning that the Government intended to drop those arrangements. They made no mention of considering the decommissioning programme against the decision on the days-at-sea arrangements. What carrot and stick are the Government using?
Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady should wait until we have made a little progress, when we can deal with that matter. I am not aware of any statement that I made to the national press. She may have read certain local reports in Scottish newspapers. I have seen a copy of the answer to a parliamentary question tabled today, and it offers a complete view of our policy. Any other reports on that policy were speculative.
I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I now make further progress by outlining our future policy.
In considering the fishing industry, we should be minded by a statement by the European Court of Auditors. I hope that the House will bear with me if I quote from it,

897
as it puts in context the real problems that the industry is facing. On decommissioning schemes, the following words were uttered:
"It must be said that since the CFP was instituted, the technological changes in the fishing sector have been so big that catch and detection facilities have now reached such a level of perfection that the traditional balance between fishing and resources has been destroyed. Any resource can now be located and exploited with an efficiency that has never been known in all the time that man has been exploiting fish resources."
That gives some indication of the problem that we must all join in dealing with. The balance between man and his ability to catch fish is very much in the favour of man.
Mr. Neville Trotter: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting North Shields and listening to the concerns of local fishermen. With the desperate state of stocks in the North sea—the extract that he has just read highlights that situation—can he give us some assurance on the problems that are facing us if the Spanish and Portuguese are given access to the North sea? However difficult the situation is now, it will be disastrous if they are given free access.
Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I congratulate him on the stalwart efforts that he has made in proposing, for example, a new fish quay at North Shields. He has done singular service to his fishermen.
I shall want to expand my remarks on Spain and Portugal. I understand the serious nature of the problems so far as fishermen are concerned, not just in the North sea but in the western approaches and Irish sea. Those are serious matters, and we will want to negotiate them during the coming Fisheries Council, commensurate with the policy of relative stability and no increase in fishing effort. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will take the tenor of his remarks with all seriousness when we carry out that debate.
When I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth I had given an indication of the European Court of Auditors' views on the relationship between man's ability to catch fish and the impact that that has on the fishing stocks. That reflects the fact that this time is difficult for the industry. The key problem is the perennial one of how to provide the maximum fishing opportunities for our fisherman while conserving the stocks sufficiently to ensure that there will be fish to catch in the future.
It is not an easy balance to strike, but we should not overlook the fact that the situation is not completely negative. In cash terms, the value of fish landed up to September this year has risen by 4·7 per cent. to a total of £315 million. That increase in the value of the landed catch reflects rises in each of the demersal, pelagic and shellfish sectors.
In deciding how the fishing stocks are to be managed, a key element must be the advice of the scientists, whose long-term analysis of the fish stocks guide their recommendations on the amount of fish that can be caught, area by area and species by species. As I shall outline, some of their recommendations will be difficult for our fishermen, as they reflect a real fear that some stocks will not be able to sustain current levels of fishing effort.
The negotiations taking place at the Fisheries Council in Brussels will also deal with the arrangements to apply in future to the Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleet, and will be very much focused on the means of ensuring that there is no increase in fishing effort by those fleets, so that vulnerable stocks are not further weakened.
898
As I have reported to the House, we are looking at all those issues against a background of securing the reductions in effort that are necessary to bring fishing opportunities, capacity and effort into a more sustainable balance, and to meet our part of the multi-annual guidance programme responsibility, which falls on all member states.
Those matters, then, constitute the agenda for the debate, and I want to expand on them. The sharing of our resources while protecting them and ensuring that we respond to changing requirements in ways that do not damage the delicate balance is one of the main challenges that we all must face. In achieving that, we must ensure that the United Kingdom's industry's needs and interests are fully reflected, in terms of fair treatment now and in developing measures for the future.
Last Thursday, in the House, I said that I would shortly clarify how the Government saw the way forward on days at sea. The House will be aware of the Government's plans to bring fishing effort more into a sustainable balance with the stocks and for meeting our MAGP targets. Hon. Members will also be aware of the recent High Court judgment in the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation's judicial review proceedings.
The court, while noting that there is total agreement on the need to prevent overfishing of certain stocks, concluded that there are various points of Community law, which it felt unable to resolve. The case has therefore been referred to the European Court of Justice.
That means that the industry has been left in a state of uncertainty, and there is a question mark over our conservation policies. In that situation, my right hon. Friends and I have concluded that the most straightforward course is to suspend the implementation of days-at-sea restrictions pending the judgment of the European Court of Justice, which we shall seek to have expedited.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In what the Minister has just said, the implication must be read that, were the decision of the European court to be favourable to the Government, they would be prepared to reimpose the days-at-sea restriction. Is that a reasonable or realistic position for the Government to have? Would it not be much more straightforward for the Government to say now that the days-at-sea restriction is to be abandoned completely, and to open negotiations and discussions with the industry immediately?
Mr. Jack: I shall answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's point now, and I hope that he will not mind if, in later remarks, I repeat some further amplification of it. I can understand the point that he makes, but none of us, in trying to deal with the question of the over-capacity of our industry and the need to constrain effort, can uncouple those different parts of the package. When we introduced days at sea, we were mindful of the failures of previous decommissioning schemes.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Not that hoary old chestnut again.
Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman wants to run away from the hoary old chestnut, he is running way from the central issue in our efforts to deal with the problem.
The central problem of decommissioning is that, if, by virtue of that policy, one takes out fishing effort, any of the

899
gains from so doing will be lost if one does not in some way constrain the fishing effort of the remainder of the fleet.
As I shall come on to outline, at this time further discussions have to be held in the light of the uncertainties that the court case has thrown up.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jack: If I may just make a little more progress to the end of this passage, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Taylor: It is just on the European Court.
Mr. Jack: The right hon. Gentleman can have his say on the European Court when I have had mine on these remarks. In fairness, I want to finish my response to the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
Hon. Members will recall that days-at-sea controls are one element of a package of measures designed to conserve the stocks and meet our Community targets, while securing value for money. Other elements are various new licensing rules, and a £25 million decommissioning scheme.
I am pleased to be able to confirm that fishermen whose bids have already been accepted under the decommissioning scheme will receive their grants, provided that, in accordance with the scheme, they scrap their vessels and submit the necessary documentation to the Ministry before 1 March 1994. Beyond that, we need to review the way forward; as a first step, we shall be speaking to the European Commissioner about what further needs to be done. I shall also speak to the industry. I shall present further proposals to the House in due course.
It is, however, already clear that it will not be easy to achieve our targets and conservation objectives without the effort reduction that was represented by days at sea.
Mr. Taylor: A case dealing with days at sea has been referred to the European Court in Luxembourg, and by tradition that Court has taken a long time to consider issues. Based on experience, what period does the Minister expect to elapse before the court reaches a decision?
Mr. Jack: I expect that the court would take between 18 months and two years to come to its decision, and there may then be subsequent legal proceedings within the United Kingdom's courts. The challenge before us is that we still have to meet our European reduction targets.
Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has repeated the terms of the written answer given this afternoon, which, while confirming the position on decommissioning for the first year, is silent about decommissioning for the second and third years. If he wants to talk to the industry and, one hopes, also listen to it in the constructive way that he set out earlier, does he agree that he will do his case, and the talks, no good if there is a veiled threat about withdrawing decommissioning? Will he confirm that the decommissioning schemes will go ahead for years two and three?
Mr. Jack: I am not in the business of making threats. I acknowledge that the situation is sensitive, but, under the changed circumstances, I want time to think through
900
carefully the range of policy options that are open to us, so that we may meet our Community targets. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, at this juncture, I do not reel off a potential list. Some schemes may be practical, others may not. I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I will take the most careful note of it in considering those options.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Jack: I must answer this important point, and I want my answer to satisfy the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
I want to give proper reflection to the available range of options to meet those targets—we shall come to other matters in the debate—and I may want to discuss all those issues with the Commissioner in the light of meeting our targets.
Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend will know that people in my port of Fleetwood will welcome his comments about days at sea, because he knows that we in Fleetwood have had serious doubts about the effectiveness of the days-at-sea provision on effort control. Does he know when he will be able to give the House an idea of the other measures that he proposes to take, and whether he will be taking forward discussions with the industry along the lines of its recent proposals for an alternative to the days-at-sea provision?
Mr. Jack: I met representatives of the industry for discussions only this afternoon. The meeting had originally been called to hear their comments on the total allowable catches and quotas proposals from the Community, but we had an initial exchange on the implications of our announcement, and I gave them an undertaking that we would have—as I would want us to have—discussions with them on those matters. If our attempts to expediate matters in the European Court come to fruition, we might see an earlier resolution to some of the problems.
As to the other measures, once I have had an opportunity to meet the European Commissioner and discuss the situation with him, I hope that, not too long after that, we can come forward with some proposals.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I understand that the Minister is trying to be helpful, and I appreciate that, but can he be a bit more specific? Is there any chance of getting an announcement in the hands of the fishing industry by early next year?
Mr. Jack: I can agree with the "next year" bit, but "early" is one of those words about which one has to think carefully. I am conscious that we have to meet our Community objectives. I want to be quite certain that the policy implications arising from the court judgment can be considered carefully, in consultation with the industry, and after listening to the views of right hon. and hon. Members. I do not want to jump to an early conclusion when there is a problem.
For example, nobody can run away, in the argument on decommissioning, from the central issue that we have to find some way to control the effort of the remainder of the fleet. If we do not,. we might potentially negate all the gains. I want to reflect on that.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jack: I will continue to give way to hon. Members, so long as I do not suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. That is what happened last time, when I gave way many times but was then accused of taking too long.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Scottish fishing industry did not choose to have recourse to the courts? Will he undertake to continue negotiations with the Scottish fishing industry, particularly on the decommissioning programme?
Mr. Jack: I hope that my hon. Friend will continue the dialogue. I have enjoyed my conversations with the Scottish fishermnen's representatives. They are robust, and I am sure that they will form a future part of our consultations.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Every hon. Member understands that the Minister is in a difficult position, and we do not expect him to tell us precisely what he will do in the interregnum while waiting either for the judgment from Europe or until the final decision has been taken. Surely he must say clearly that, among the options that have to be considered, he will not abandon decommissioning. That is all we are saying. Will he accept that decommissioning will have a vital part to play in the future? There is no difficulty in answering that question—a simple yes or no will do.
Mr. Jack: I have not uttered, nor does the rest of my brief contain, any words to the effect that I am abandoning any policy. As I have said, I understand the importance of decommissioning, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's understanding of my position, but I cannot give a definitive, detailed, worked-out, alternative approach.
I cannot escape the fact that the maximum effectiveness of decommissioning is derived when the central issue of effort control for the remainder of the fleet is addressed. In all honesty, nobody can run away from that point.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Dorset fishermen have been impressed by my hon. Friend's approach to fishing problems. He should take credit for what he did for the inshore fishermen and the shell fishermen. We have a great deal of faith in what he can do. I hope that, supported by the positive approach of my fishermen to all the problems, he will be able to come up with a solution that can be to the benefit of all parts of the industry. After all, the industry will get the benefits of good conservation measures.
Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks. I met some of the fishermen from his area when we were discussing the previous policy, and I found what they had to say was useful.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Jack: I should like to make a little progress, because I want to deal with certain matters connected with decommissioning. I have been extraordinarily generous in giving way to hon. Members representing the Scottish National party. Others may wish to intervene. I am not against being interrupted, but I want to make a little bit of progress so that the House has something else to chew over.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not quite able to hear the Minister, but he
902
may in the extremity of the moment have forgotten that, earlier in his speech, he had committed himself to giving way to me. I know that he is a man of his word, and I am sure that he will want to keep it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Jack: I want to make a little progress. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) may catch my eye a little later.
Decommissioning has a role to play, but I note that even the Select Committee, which advocated a more generous scheme, appeared to share the Government's scepticism, in paragraph 140, and called for "value for money safeguards". Similarly, in last year's debate, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) admitted:
"A decommissioning scheme is not a panacea or a policy that can work on its own".—[Official Report, 9 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 865.]
Controlling fishing effort is not something we can dodge. No doubt Opposition Members will attack the Government—for example, on the size of our scheme. I hope that all those who choose that line of argument will be kind enough, on behalf of their respective parties, to tell us how much they would have spent, whether a firm pledge has been given or whether they have simply uttered words for the consumption of the industry—knowing, as Conservative Members know, that they will never have the chance to implement those hollow gestures.
Mr. Salmond: As the Minister knows, the plans of the Scottish National party for decommissioning were in our pre-Budget statement.
Will the Minister consider what he is doing with this policy? He has told us that the issue of days at sea will remain in the European Court and continue to poison the atmosphere. He is withdrawing decommissioning after the first year, even in Scotland where the industry was not a party to the court case that he is reacting to, as Conservative Members have pointed out. He has shown no signs of responding to the fishermen's submissions, which he asked to be submitted on 30 September.
Can we take from the Minister's utterances any indication of good faith towards the industry? He is in danger of once again poisoning the atmosphere by withdrawing decommissioning without rationale.
Mr. Jack: That almost sounded like a quote from the press release that was written before the debate started.
I have not yet said that decommissioning will be withdrawn. I said that I understood the importance attached to it, and that I would consider the views expressed by hon. Members during the debate. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that he understood my position and that I was not able to give definitive, detailed, point-by-point statements of the policies that we will have to follow, bearing in mind that we still have our Community effort-reduction targets to meet. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will understand that and not misrepresent the situation.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jack: No; I want to make some progress.
I do not want to pollute the good relations that I hope we have begun to build up with the industry, and I will later refer to the study that the fishermen's organisations have put before us.
Mr. A. J. Beith: In the intervention by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), and in some of the Minister's earlier comments, there seemed to be a suggestion that the Government thought it improper that the National Association of Fishermen's Organisations and my constituents should take the matter to the court to obtain a ruling. That is a different attitude from the one taken on Sunday trading. I never heard Ministers say that it was wrong for B and Q to take that matter to the European Court.
In seeking good constructive relations with the industry, I hope that the Minister is not implying that its application for a legal ruling deserves some form of punitive reaction in relation to decommissioning, and that his action is a temporary prelude to reintroducing it as part of a new package.
Mr. Jack: I am not vindictive by nature. If the NFFO felt that that was the best course of action to serve its members' interests, it had every right to proceed. My disappointment was because, having listened to what people said during the summer, I would have liked to respond. But the court case got in the way, and we now have to tackle the programme in a different way.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan thinks through his policies carefully, and I hope that he will understand the difficulty I currently face. I still have before me the Community effort-reduction obligation in MAGP, and I need to discuss its implications for the United Kingdom. I am aware of a number of ways of achieving effort reduction, but I want to weigh those discussions very carefully—as I will those that I will have with the industry—before coming to a firm conclusion, about which I and my right hon. Friend would feel comfortable when putting it before the fishing industry.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for effort reduction. In Hastings and Rye during the summer, we did not reach our sole quota. There is great worry about the future existence of sole as a species in that area. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for arranging a survey of the shingle bank, in order to find out the cause of the problem. His announcement today will be welcomed by the fishermen. At least they have some respite from their worst fears.
Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She has done a good job in representing the interests of her fishing community, and she brought a delegation of fishermen to see me. I am grateful for her comments about the aggregate dredging of the shingle bank in her constituency.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jack: Since the hon. Lady asks so nicely, I will.
Mrs. Ewing: I appreciate the exigencies under which the Minister is operating. He has spoken quite clearly about the carrot and stick of the days at sea and decommissioning. Under what circumstances would the Government argue for the continuation of a decommissioning scheme after 1 March 1994?
Mr. Jack: I have tried very hard to paint the picture. I have explained the current issues in regard to meeting the Community effort-reduction targets. As I have explained to the hon. Lady, and reflected in terms what the Select Committee have said, it must be recognised that, if we are
904
to have a decommissioning scheme that delivers, we cannot escape considering the effort that remains fishing. No one can run away from that.
I do not dismiss any proposition about ways of achieving the Community target, but I need time to consider such propositions in the context of the discussions with the Commission and the industry.
Hon. Members have mentioned the work that the industry has done. Technical conservation has a role to play, as the Select Committee noted. The industry has done useful work during the summer and "I want to pursue that subject in discussions with it. We must recognise that the scientific advice is that the industry's suggestions will make only a small contribution to reducing fishing effort. The multi-annual guidance programme targets as currently constituted by the Commission do not allow technical conservation to count. I am sure that Opposition Members will tell me that technical conservation is the answer to some of the problems.
What set of proposals are the Opposition in favour of? We have had two sets of proposals put before us: one from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which codifies existing good conservation practice but contains nothing which would genuinely relieve the serious pressure on north sea cod, except for the idea of a separator trawl. That would require more research, and raises a question of enforceability.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) remarked about the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's proposals, they seem to contemplate a days-at-sea scheme with no total allowable catches. Their main proposal for the North sea was for a reduced mesh size in square mesh panels.
Unlike the Opposition, the industry has at least put down its ideas in detail. There are limitations to the proposals, but much valuable work has been done. I can assure the House that we will resume discussions with the industry on its ideas, to see what part it can play in our further attempts to reduce fishing effort and meet our Community obligations.
I cannot leave out the views of the Liberal Democrat party about this matter. I am at a loss in trying to comment on its fishing policy, because, since I have been responsible for fishery matters, its only policy seems to have been waving in front of me a document which was acquired from one of our fishery offices. If it cannot do any better, it is the Liberal Democrat party that should be decommissioned forthwith.
I have already referred to a number of points about effort control in the Select Committee's report. I was pleased to note that the Committee also endorsed a number of key elements in the Government's approach to the common fisheries policy—particularly the central importance of relative stability, the use of total allowable catches and quotas as policy instruments and the need to base policy decisions closely on the advice of scientific experts. All those concerns will underline our negotiating approach to TACs and quotas in the Council next week.
I know that the Committee considered our proposals on days-at-sea controls too draconian. I hope that its members have been able to see the action that we have taken in the light of the court case; we had hoped to announce an easing of policy, but the case prevented that.
The Commission's proposals for TACs and quotas, which the Council will consider next week, must be seen

905
against a background of continued pressure on the principal stocks, and the need to find a satisfactory solution to the problem of reducing effort.
The picture around our shores is generally worrying. West coast demersals continue to be a poor state: They suffer from the same problems as those in the North sea—high mortality and low spawning stock biomass. In the Irish sea, the cod situation remains extremely serious, and the Advisory Committee on Fish Management has recommended drastic action.
Reductions are proposed for important stocks in area seven—cod, anglers and megrim. It is also proposed that the TACs for northern hake should be significantly reduced, on the basis of the first analytical assessment of that stock. Flatfish stocks in particular—everywhere—have shown some recovery, thanks to good recruitment; but, in that and all other stocks, prudent management must be exercised.
The Commission's proposals on the TACs for North sea demersals, as well as North sea herring and western mackerel, must await the conclusions of the Community Norway consultations, which are currently taking place. I think that it is too early to judge the outcome of those discussions; however, I can tell the House that the stocks of all round fish except haddock are depleted. As for pelagic species, although western mackerel and herring stocks are in good shape, the stocks of North sea mackerel remain in a collapsed state.
Dr. Godman: In the light of the negotiations with Norway—and given that a number of vessels are ready to sail at the end of the month, so that they can start fishing in northern Norwegian waters early in the new year—can the Minister give us any idea when the negotiations between the European Union and Norway will be settled? Are they likely to be settled before 31 December?
Mr. Jack: They must be settled in time for the negotiations of the Council this weekend. At the end of that meeting, we must agree the TACs and quotas.
Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a recent piece of good news in relation to Community negotiations with the European economic area, which included discussion of the so-called cohesion cod. As a result of that discussion, in the north Norwegian waters our vessels will enjoy an increase of some 40 per cent. in the amount of cod they can catch. We hope that, in our discussions this weekend and next week, we shall reach a conclusion that meets the hon. Gentleman's timetable.
In negotiating, the Government will have in mind the needs and concerns of people in all regions of the United Kingdom. We shall also request Hague preference terms where appropriate, and seek to obtain western mackerel flexibility at least at the same levels as last year.
I know that hon. Members will understand that we are in the process of a complicated negotiation. As well as dealing with the TACs and quotas for stocks in our own waters, we must deal with those for stocks that we share with Norway. As one of 12 member states, we shall do the best we can to secure an outcome that gives the United Kingdom the best possible fishing opportunities for 1994, consistent with the requirement to conserve fish stocks and preserve the principle of relative stability.
906
I was anxious for the industry to be aware of those factors. This afternoon, I met some of its representatives to explain our position, and to listen to their concerns before the negotiations.
The motion refers to guide prices. I am pleased to say that the 1994 prices agreed—as is usual—in the November Council were generally satisfactory for the United Kingdom. In particular, we secured the continuance of the dual guide price for herring, which is designed to enable the United Kingdom industry to take best advantage of the Community support mechanisms.
Next week, the Council is likely to decide on the future of the fisheries accession arrangements for Spain and Portugal. As with the TACs and quotas, we shall insist that relative stability must be maintained; equally, there must be no increase in fishing effort. We must all accept that the option of doing nothing does not exist. The Act of accession for those two countries clearly lays down the obligation to examine the position, and for us to consider changes this year.
Mrs. Ewing: In which articles?
Mr. Jack: The articles dealing with this matter that I have seen so far were in the Commission's original proposals. They were not acceptable to us. We made it very clear at the outset that the Commission's wish to concede the principle of freedom of access for all Community vessels to Community waters before putting in place the detail of what was to replace the existing mechanisms was entirely unacceptable to the United Kingdom. When the matter was discussed again in the November Council, we were joined by other member states that felt the same.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jack: May I finish my answer to the important question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? I am glad that she asked it, from a sedentary position.
We have made our stance very clear. The Council will be presented with the outcome of discussions that have taken place among the various committees, including the Committee of Permanent Representatives. We shall have further proposals before us at the weekend, and I have outlined the basic principles on which we shall judge those matters.
Let me make it clear that I take the issues involving those with fishing interests in the North sea as seriously as I take issues affecting those who represent fishing interests in the western approaches in the Irish sea. This matter affects both areas, and it is extremely serious; but, as I have said, the option to do nothing is not available.
Mr. Tyler: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to be helpful, and to strengthen the Minister's arm in the negotiations. In relation to both the western approaches and the Irish box, these matters could pose as serious a threat to the industry as the days-at-sea provisions—more serious, perhaps, in regard to certain species. We all recognise the problems that the Minister faces.
Nevertheless, I think that we all feel—I am sure that this is the industry's view—that the circumstances in which the accession treaty was signed were different in material ways. The emphasis on the conservation of particular species has changed dramatically in the intervening period.

907
I hope that the Minister will be robust in the negotiations, and will not be happy to indulge in horse trading that will sell our fishermen down the river.
Mr. Jack: We took an extremely robust line when the matter was first discussed. We said that the Commission's proposed measures were unacceptable—and we took a similarly robust line last time. I like to think that the force of our arguments and our negotiating position attracted support from others.
I have made our basic principles extremely clear. Let me say in all sincerity, however, that, however robust I am, and however hard I fight for our fishermen's interests—which I will do—we are but one of 12. I cannot anticipate the final actions of other member states, which will themselves consider the matter in terms of their own national interests.
It is worth recording, in connection with the way in which the Community works, that Greece and Italy have little direct interest in the matter. Obviously, Spain and Portugal are entirely in favour of the proposition. The United Kingdom and Ireland have made a clear statement of opposition to the proposals that have been put forward so far. Other countries have voiced reservations in their own interests as they see fit. We shall continue to try to ensure that there is robust support, and to question inadequate proposals. We do not have the option on this occasion to do nothing.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: The issue to which the Minister refers has serious implications for the Irish box and the Irish sea, where France, Spain and Portugal take 88 per cent. of the catch. The odds in that playing field, if one may use that analogy, are loaded agains the Northern Irish fishermen, and I am worried that the Minister's comments indicate a willingness to let himself be persuaded, or perhaps bullied, by other European nations.
That is not acceptable to the fishing industry. We need the same rules and regulations and for them to be enforced against other countries that are taking the major part of the fishing industry away from those Irish areas.
Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. Let me not leave him in any doubt that the United Kingdom has been resolute in its objections so far to the proposals that have come forward. Our negotiators went for further discussions with a clear remit that, unless the basic principles that I have outlined—relative stability and no increase in fishing effort—were met, the proposals were unacceptable.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I could sit in the Council meeting all next week, thump the table hard and continue to say no, but if 11 people decide to say yes, I am not in a position to veto that. My task must be to negotiate with as much skill and determination as possible to achieve the best possible deal for our fishermen, under circumstances in which to do nothing is not an option.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that there is an agreed Community position that the Irish box ceases to exist at the end of December 1995. That is not to say that there are not other options that ought to be considered that relate to the removal of that box. We shall consider those proposals carefully. Some people have suggested
908
alternatives, such as a Shetland box, or closed areas. If any one of those were to be introduced, they would be put in place on a non-discriminatory basis and all Community countries would be bound by whatever restrictions were imposed.
In closing areas, one must remember the displacement effect—where people go to fish when they are not allowed to do so in certain areas. When I visited the three Northern Ireland fishing ports in the summer, I was left in no doubt of the state of the fishing industry there and the difficulties faced by those who fish there. Those difficulties shall be in my mind as we negotiate.
I hope that hon. Members understand the reasons for the policy announcement. I am not abandoning policies, as has been suggested, but merely regrouping to consider where we go from here. I cannot escape the Community obligations under our multi-annual guidance programme. I shall fight hard in the negotiations in Brussels in the coming days for our fishermen, and over the issues of TACs, quotas and the concerns with Spain and Portugal.
Conservative Members do not shirk difficult decisions over the fishing industry. It is easy, in the interests of gesture politics, to talk fine words, but our common task must be the conservation of our fishing stocks for the long-term future of the industry.
8.8 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from 'and supports' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'agrees with the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture that days at sea restrictions are "unnecessarily draconian" and "carry the risk that the United Kingdom fleet will suffer a catastrophic financial implosion"; notes the recent High Court judgment on the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992; urges the Government to abandon the days at sea restrictions and to respond positively to the conservation proposals put forward by the fishing industry; calls upon the Government to maintain the role of the Royal Navy in fisheries protection work and to do all in its power to ensure that the Common Fisheries Policy enforcement mechanisms coming into operation on 1st January 1994 are effective; urges the Government to ensure that the minimum possible disadvantage is imposed upon the United Kingdom fishing industry by any agreement on the Spanish and Portuguese Act of Accession; and calls upon the Government to use the forthcoming European Union Fisheries Council meeting to secure a better deal for United Kingdom fishermen.'.
This has almost become the annual debate on the fishing industry. It is certainly the main debate of the year as it traditionally precedes the December Council when important decisions are taken in relation to the industry. Tonight's debate is not only about that Council. We have the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture and the Government's response before us and this debate is an unsatisfactory way in which to deal with that. There is a great deal of valuable information in the report. The Select Committee has made a great effort and it is unfair and unacceptable that it should be slotted into the debate when hon. Members wish to raise a whole range of issues. If there is any doubt that it is unfair and unacceptable, I suggest that hon. Members re-read the Minister's speech to see how little reference he made to some of the report's important recommendations. Indeed, he hardly mentioned it because he is inevitably preoccupied with the decisions to be taken at the Council later this month.
I am afraid that the industry is still in a relatively depressed state when compared to its state in the past year. There has been some improvement in prices, but not in all areas. However, the Scottish salmon industry—not the

909
traditional sea fishing industry—is especially depressed. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will make some reference to it in his reply. The salmon industry is facing a crisis. It is being subjected to an utterly unacceptable level of dumping of salmon from Norway.
The minimum import price that has been set is derisory and the original proposal to license imports would have been more effective, but Norway refused to accept. In the Minister's negotiations with Norway and in talks at the Council, he must come up with more effective action to save that industry because thousands of jobs are at stake. The House as a whole does not seem to appreciate the growing importance of fish farming and how crucial the jobs are, not only to the Scottish economy, but to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The fishing industry depends on government. I use the word "government" in its widest sense to apply to the authorities of the European Community and the Government who are answerable to the House of Commons. I know that the present Government and their predecessors have made great play of their wish to disengage from industry and apply a laissez-faire approach. That cannot apply to fishing and at least on that point there is common ground.
The House accepts that the fishing industry cannot conserve its own stocks. Clearly, it needs Government intervention to protect its future and it needs support in other respects. Opposition Members would argue that the Government have a special responsibility to ensure that we can conserve our stocks and maintain a viable industry for the long-term future. One only has to look at the history of the North sea herring to recognise what can happen to stocks, or at the Mediterranean, where, as a result of over-fishing by some of the other EU member countries, there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, we need to achieve a better balance.
The record of the Government—not just the record since the Minister of State took over, because we are entitled to take a longer view than that—is essentially one of failure, and nothing that we have heard today encourages us to believe that that period of failure is about to come to an end. One example of that is decommissioning, which has been central to much of the argument in the House.
When the Minister took over the brief, I dare say that, like me, he read some of the debates, particularly the main debate of the year, over the past five years or so. He will have seen the arguments about the need for a decommissioning scheme. Between 1987 and 1992, £256 million was made available for decommissioning schemes throughout the Community. Ireland did not take advantage of that because it has always been Ireland's policy—there is an implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of it—that its industry was entitled to grow. Ireland's position was unique in that respect. The only other country that did not take a penny of the money that had been allocated by the EC for decommissioning was Britain.
We are talking about substantial sums. Let me remind the House that Spain, which has a large fishing fleet, took £61 million out of the arrangement and Germany—that big fishing fleet—took £26 million.
Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is talking about decommissioning. Will he tell
910
the House how much his party would put into a decommissioning scheme in this country? How much would it cost and where would the money come from?
Dr. Strang: I shall come to that. If I do not answer that question, I hope that the hon. Member will intervene again.
I want to spend a little time on the history, which is important, not least because of the announcement today. The previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), made it clear consistently in debates that the Government were resolutely opposed to decommissioning. In December 1990 he said:
"I emphasise that decommissioning is not the way to reduce the pressure on fish stocks".—[Official Report, 13 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 1171.]
Hon. Members who have been more regular attenders of these debates than I have been over the past five years will know that that was at a time when virtually every hon. Member with a fishing constituency was advocating the need for a decommissioning scheme.
We have a decommissioning scheme now, but it is inadequate. The Minister was quoting selectively when he referred to the Select Committee report. In fact, I believe that it was the only reference to the report in his speech. I shall give the whole quotation. The report states:
"We understand the Government's scepticism about decommissioning, although it has made things much harder for itself by its failure to control the size of the fleet since the end of the last scheme in 1986."
The definitive point—I am glad that the chairman of the Select Committee is present—is this:
"We do not however consider that the Government's half-hearted scheme is the right response to the problems associated with decommissioning. More money should be committed to make a serious effort to reduce over capacity along with the necessary value for money safeguards."
In the other place, the European Communities Select Committee published an equally good report. It said:
"The decommissioning scheme announced by the Government in February 1992 is welcome as a sign that the Government have accepted the principle of decommissioning. However, the measures which were announced are not sufficient to reduce the capacity of the fleet in the long term. The Committee accepts that £25 million is not even enough to prevent the fleet capacity from expanding. Four or five times that amount is now needed to make up for the lack of a decommissioning scheme in the United Kingdom during the last decade. The scheme which was announced must, regretfully, be described as too little, too late.
We have said, and I repeat it, that £25 million a year should be the opening position for a decommissioning scheme.
Obviously we cannot predict what the circumstances will be in three year or four years. However, I submit that in the present climate an absolute minimum should be £25 million a year for three years, not £25 million over three years. The one thing about which we should be clear is that we must have a decommissioning scheme that will have a real impact on the fishing capacity, or we might as well not have one at all. All that we have from the Government is a belated, half-hearted approach. It has come many years after the other countries have implemented decommissioning schemes. Now, we are not sure what the Government are suggesting, but it seems that there may be a threat to suspend the scheme from the end of the financial year.
Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming his party's firm pledge about the amount that it would wish to spend initially. I note that it was for three years and possibly beyond. The hon. Gentleman talked about the effectiveness of decommissioning. Does he accept that constraining the effort of the remainder of the

911
fishing fleet after the effects of a decommissioning scheme have been felt is crucial to the effectiveness of decommissioning as an approach to restraining fishing effort?
Dr. Strang: To pharaphrase the Minister, what he is saying is not dissimilar to what he quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) as saying, which is that decommissioning is not a panacea. It is not a solution to the long-term problem. We must take into account the increased efficiency to which the Minister referred to in his opening remarks. We accept that. However, we believe that a proper and effective decommissioning scheme has a part to play.
The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the enforcement of the Government's measures, including the proposed days-at-sea restrictions, would cost about £9 million. That is very costly. High costs are involved in some of the things that the Government are threatening to do. However, I take the Minister's point. In itself, decomissioning is not sufficient, but we are saying that it should be a major element of our approach.
The Government's approach is also inadequate—I would describe it as a debacle—on the proposed days-at-sea restrictions. There was virtual unity against that proposal among representatives in the House from fishing communities. The Opposition parties, led by the Labour party, consistently voted against the days-at-sea proposals at every opportunity. There was no support from the industry and no support from the House other than the whipped votes that the Minister secured. It could have been a close-run thing following the passage of the enabling Act, but not enough Government Members voted with the Opposition.
When the new Minister of State and the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took over, they announced that the Government would not go ahead with the implementation of the days-at-sea restrictions on 1 October, but would defer them until 1 January. I am grateful to the Minister and his right hon. Friend for meeting us twice to discuss those issues. that deferral was a window of opportunity for the Government to come up with an alternative policy that did not involve days-at-sea restrictions, which were clearly unacceptable to the industry.
During the course of all that, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations decided to go to court. The Minister was making it clear throughout that the Government were not minded to get rid of the days-at-sea restrictions. They may have reached that conclusion, but nothing that I heard him say at our meetings enabled me to walk out of the Ministry and say to the media, "Yes, I think that the Government will abandon the days-at-sea restrictions on the basis of the proposals put forward by the industry, which have all been submitted by the end of September."
The NFFO wrote to the Government to put it on record that it did not want the fact that it was going to court to prejudice the discussions on the conservation proposals put forward by the industry. The reply, dated 11 August, signed by Ms Rimmington, the Minister's Private Secretary, said that the Secretary of State was
"aware that leave was granted on 22 July, and that the substantive hearing"—
912
the court hearing—
will take place in the first week of November. However, she has asked me to emphasise that this should not affect the dialogue with the industry which the Minister of State announced on 7 July."
Notwithstanding that, the Minister gave the clear impression, which has been confirmed by interventions in the Chamber this evening, that the Government deeply resented the NFFO going to court. Indeed, in the course of the dialogue they threatened that, in return for going to court, the NFFO might find that the Government would abandon the decommissioning scheme. The industry was given the impression that that was an option. I was aghast when the Minister said as much at my second meeting with her on 11 November.
Why did the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who is not in his place, and the leader of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), focus attention on the fact that the Scottish industry was not party to the court case? As the Minister knows, they made that point because the Government clearly implied that they were minded to punish the industry for going to court. What other interpretation can we put on their statements during that dialogue? If I had the press release, I could quote from it.
The Minister implied that the court process distracted from the real issue of considering the industry's proposals. But the deadline for those proposals was 30 September and the case did not come up in court until November. The Government had the whole month of October to reach decisions on the alternative proposals and announce that compulsory tie-up would not figure as an element of their package of measures for conserving our stocks. That is what should have happened, but the Government did not do that.
We now have the court's decision. Had it not been for the Government's announcement this afternoon, the NFFO would have applied for interim relief in the court on 11 January. Had that been granted, the court would have prevented the Government from going ahead with the days-at-sea restrictions. I do not know what legal advice the Government took, but it is important to make that point clear. The Government have simply said that they have suspended the days-at-sea restrictions until a decision by the European Court of Justice. That is a bad decision by the Government and I hope that, when they have had time to consider it further, they will recognise that they must remove the proposal completely. It will work only if the industry co-operates and the industry will never co-operate on that matter.
Dr. Robert Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the court judgment referred the matter up to the European Court of Justice? To summarise both cases, it was a neutral judgment. However, the court observed that it was necessary to conserve precious stocks.
Dr. Strang: I do not dispute that. I have quoted the Select Committee in our amendment. On compulsory tie-up, the Select Committee said that days-at-sea restrictions were "unnecessarily draconian" and
"carry the risk that the United Kingdom fleet will suffer a catastrophic financial implosion".
We believe that days-at-sea restrictions are wrong because they will discriminate against people who have borrowed large sums of money and young skippers who

913
have bought a new vessel and are trying to earn an honest living. How can they pay off those debts and keep their business viable if those restrictions are imposed on them?
Like his predecessor last year, the Minister opened this debate by referring to the dangers associated with fishing. I make no apology for making this point and I make it as gently as I can. At present, if fishermen are a long way from home, fishing in difficult weather conditions, that constitute a danger to them, they will come home. With days-at-sea restrictions, there will be a pressure, however small, and an incentive to continue fishing in those dangerous conditions because that will be one of the limited days on which they can fish at sea.
One reason why the proposal would be unfair and unworkable is that, for various reasons—usually historically—Spanish, French and Irish vessels operate in the same areas as our fishermen, who could be tied up in port. The number of days which our fishermen could spend fishing those waters would be restricted, whereas no such restrictions would be imposed on those other member states because they are not implementing the days-at-sea restrictions, with which the Minister is still threatening the industry.
In the statement which the Government issued this afternoon in a written answer to the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), the Minister says that he will discuss the matter with the EC Commissioner. We understand that there is a common fisheries policy and that it is not unreasonable for the Minister to discuss the matter with the Commissioner and his colleagues in the Council of Fisheries, but I hope that the Government will not try to replace what is essentially domestic legislation—the regulations that have been enacted by the House of Commons on the basis of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992—with EC regulations that would apply days-at-sea restrictions across the board. Is that what the Minister has in mind?
Mr. Jack: Given that, as I said earlier, we still have to try to achieve our Community effort reduction target, under the multi-annual guidance programme, it is right that we should go to the Commission, explain in more detail what has occurred and analyse the implications of suspending the days-at-sea restrictions. They were an attempt to reduce fishing effort for the reasons that I gave earlier in terms of their relationship with decommissioning. We should then explore alternative measures with the Commissioner. I do not rule out the possibility of exploring with him some of the ideas with which the industry has come up. I gave a guarded reservation on the Commission's scepticism over gear regulations, but I did not rule out discussing that and other measures. What the Committee may choose to do is up to it.
Dr. Strang: We shall see what develops from the Minister's discussions with the Commission. I presume that they are to take place this month—
Mr. Jack: Early in the new year.
Dr. Strang: I am grateful for that information. I understand that Ministers will be preoccupied with all the material before the Council next week, so it will be January before the hon. Gentleman meets the Commissioner.
The Government's statement on decommissioning does not stand up. We listened carefully to what the Minister said about it, but there is no case for the suggestion that
914
decommissioning might not continue beyond the end of this financial year. The very opposite is true. If we are suspending the days-at-sea restriction proposals, we need additional measures to tackle the problem of too many fishermen and too few fish. If anything, the Government should announce this evening an enhanced decommissioning scheme.
The Minister failed to give any logical reason for suspending the decommissioning scheme from 31 March —which was certainly the implication of his remarks. We can read the statement in only one way: the money will be provided for this year, but the Government wish to consider whether they will provide the money for the next two years. Either that is just vindictive, or it is a threat that the Government will halt decommissioning at the end of this financial year. If the Minister reads his remarks today he will find that he totally failed to make the case for what he announced.
The Minister was right to draw attention to the conservation proposals that he has received from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and it is only right to pay tribute to the work that they have put into their proposals. Those proposals are not complementary; they are contradictory in many important respects. That is not to say that it is impossible to produce a package of additional technical conservation measures, allied with an enhanced decommissioning scheme, which would greatly improve the future of our fishery stocks.
I have already mentioned the inadequacy of the time allowed for debate on the Select Committee report and the Government's reply to it. I do not have time to do justice to that problem, but I should like to refer to one element in the report which is important—the proposal for individual transferable quotas. I wholly endorse the Government's response to the Select Committee on this. The Select Committee was wrong to make the proposal in the first place and the Government's reasons for rejecting it were valid.
My main worry about ITQs is that big business would move in and buy them up, with small fishing communities in the south-west of England or the north-west of Scotland selling them off. They might not even be able to buy them in the first place, because the Select Committee recommended auctioning the ITQs, so that people would have to pay for the right to fish. Another problem is that some of the ITQs could go to foreign-owned vessels.
I also agree with the Government's comments on enforcement and conservation. I do not believe that ITQs would produce a more effective conservation regime.
The Minister mentioned total allowable catches being proposed at the forthcoming Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will have something to say about TACs later, but I should like to point out two issues in this context. The Minister did not refer to the first of them, which was the idea of the Council regulation establishing a control system for the common fisheries policy. The Minister will, however, recognise that this is important. We know that some countries are flouting the regulations more than others are.
I make no apology for singling out Spain, which has a large fleet and which is guilty, as the Irish Government have documented. There was an excellent programme on television about it, carried on "The Cook Report". The Spanish fishing industry is certainly flouting the

915
regulations in a big way, so it is crucial that the new Council regulation be used in due course to sort out the problem.
The responsibility for policing the quotas will remain in the first instance with the fishery inspectors. We have a good force of them and the Minister paid tribute to them. The Spaniards have very few inspectors and other countries have inadequate systems of surveillance and inspection, so there is no effective enforcement of the quotas. That renders the whole approach to TACs nonsensical. I strongly urge the Minister to make a major issue of this next week.
My second point about the Council concerns the Spanish and Portuguese accession, to which we refer in our amendment. I appreciate the fact that the subject must be discussed at this meeting and that there is a commitment to come up with a firm solution. It will not be enough to stonewall in the belief that that will maintain the status quo until the year 2002.
The bottom line is that we must ensure that Spanish vessels in particular do not gain access to waters where they cannot fish now—the south-western approaches, the Irish sea and the Clyde fishery, not to mention the North sea. I emphasise the importance of the Irish box—an emphasis different from the Minister's. The real pressure from the Spanish will arise in the Irish box. We need a wide variety of ways of dealing with that; it calls for some ingenuity. If the will exists, it will certainly be possible to put in place successor arrangements which achieve precisely what the Irish box achieves: to prevent Spanish vessels from getting into these waters. As the Minister said, that must apply also to the North sea, where we want no additional Spanish effort.
This is the supreme challenge facing the Minister at the forthcoming Community meeting. Ultimately, although the TACs are important, they change from year to year, but this problem is one with which we shall have to live for years to come. As long as the proposal, presented by the Commission or by the Presidency, is within the terms of the treaty of accession, the decision will be by qualified majority voting: there will be no British veto.
Understandably, therefore, the Minister said that we cannot stop this on our own. But the best way to stop it would be to avoid a vote altogether and to succeed, in the horse-trading that goes on, in getting a deal meaning that we have enough support to stop any measure that would damage our interests being agreed to. I do not fault what the Minister has said, but the real test will be what he brings back. It is crucial that he does not let down the British industry and the House of Commons in the forthcoming negotiations—I am sure that we are united on that.
We regret the way in which the Government have handled the conservation issue. We believe that relations between the Government and the industry are at an all-time low, and are worried that that is reflected in an increase in the number of landings of black fish. The only way in which we can stop that is to re-establish a proper relationship between the industry and the Government. I appeal to the Government not just to suspend the days at sea restrictions but to abandon them. They should return to the House as the Minister pledged in his announcement today—I dare say that it will be February at the earliest.
916
The Government should announce a clear abandonment of the days at sea restrictions and a policy enabling the Government to work with, not against, the industry. We shall vote for that when we vote for our amendment tonight.
8.51 pm
Sir Jerry Wiggin: My first pleasant task is to say how nice it is to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) back on the Labour Front Bench, and I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to say so earlier. It is many years since we used to debate together across the Floor of the House on various agricultural matters. If my memory does not fail me, in those days I used to disagree with almost everything that he had to say. I was therefore delighted when I entirely agreed with his first three points.
The hon. Gentleman said that he believed that we should have had a considerably longer period in which to debate the Select Committee's report. Although I say so myself, it was an important report, and I was grateful for the support that I received from members of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman might have a word with his hon. Friends on the Liaison Committee which, despite an application for a half-day debate on the subject, decided that the matters that we debated yesterday should take priority. It is partly for that reason that the Government have been kind enough to refer to our report in the motion.
The hon. Gentleman also commented on the fish-farming industry, and I endorse what he said. Some two or three years ago, we did a study of that extremely important industry, whose economic importance may one day exceed that of the wild fishing industry. In parts of the highlands of Scotland it remains far and away the largest employer. The Norwegians have disgracefully overproduced. I hope that, on receiving a sensible application from the salmon farmers, Her Majesty's Government will use that as a card in the negotiations and put up a substantial quota against the farmed fish which are coming in in such profusion, and at well below the cost of production, from Norway.
The hon. Gentleman also made a statement reinforcing the Committee's conclusion—the absolute necessity for Government intervention if there is to be control over the fishing industries of Europe. The hard truth is that the physical operation of fishing has become much too efficient. The march of science cannot be halted—fish-finding equipment, trawlers, machinery and all that goes with the technology of fishing are all more efficient than stocks will allow. I cannot see any voluntary arrangement ever being successful in constraining Europe's fishermen from overfishing their main resource.
I have never spoken in a fisheries debate before, and I shall be brief as the two or three fishermen in my constituency hardly constitute a major interest. We had to learn about the industry almost from scratch and the subject was of interest to us all. When we stand back from the subject in a way that no other hon. Member present in today's debate can do—with the possible exception of the Whip—we see a relatively small industry.
I was pleased to learn that the industry's gross output has risen to £315 million, which must be a much higher figure than in recent years. To put the industry in context, it is less than half the size of the canned pet food industry and quite a lot smaller than the coffee industry. It has

917
representatives in the west country who are more vociferous and—dare I say it—sometimes less reasonable than their counterparts in Scotland.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): It is sinful to say that.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: I do not wish to enter into a debate about that, but the calmness and rationality of some of the Scottish fishing interests were impressive.
I also acknowledge that there are small villages, harbours and ports where the fishing industry is so important to the social fabric and structure of the district as to have a disproportionate effect on the local economy. It is perhaps for that reason that my hon. Friends from the west country are present today—we always stick together.
Mr. Harris: Not at the moment.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: I was making comparisons to encourage everyone to adopt a more rational approach. There has been a good deal of hot-headed talk in the debate, from which I can stand back, and I did not think it was unreasonable to make my earlier comment.
The Committee travelled all over the United Kingdom, and would have preferred to take longer doing so. We also visited fishing dependent areas in Norway, France and Spain. As we listened to fishermen and others, we felt considerable sympathy for all Governments in their attempts to establish a workable sea fisheries conservation policy.
The blame for the uncontestable fact that sea fish stocks are in a parlous state always lay with somebody else—the Eurocrats in Brussels, the Government in Whitehall, Spanish fishermen, French fishermen, Norwegian fishermen, other types of fishing vessels and methods, the chaps from the next-door harbour—certainly those from the next-door county. If we were in Cornwall, we were told that it was the fault of the Scots; if we were in Scotland, we were told that it was the fault of those in the west country. Such an approach did not allow anybody to produce a rational and sensible solution.
In private, not a single fisherman, whether Norwegian, Spanish, French or Scottish, denied that a problem existed. They all freely admitted that something had to be done and that there could be no future without a policy of some sort. But they could not suggest a firm arrangement that would not affect them, so any suggestions were unacceptable. I know that that seems harsh, but we must face reality.
The Committee felt that, in effect, the common fisheries policy had been developed from the agricultural sector of the Community. Although it appeared to be a good idea at the time, the failure to administer it in a universal and even-handed manner throughout the northern fishing countries has led to the mess in which we now find ourselves. The fact remains that, despite the figures given, our fishing stocks are still declining. Far from simply imposing the proposals, much more urgent and stricter measures will be needed if positive assistance is to be given to the re-establishment of certain stocks.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the history of the herring industry. The truth is that the herring fleet was happy to have a moratorium on herring fishing because there were no herring left. By not fishing for herring for 10 years, the stocks are now gradually being restored. The same principle should and must apply to many other species, but for the United Kingdom it is particularly important for cod and haddock.
918
I previously expressed sympathy for the Government, but I admit that the Committee had some rather harsh things to say about how the Government were proposing to achieve their capacity and effort-reduction targets under the Community's 1993 to 1996 multi-annual guidance programme. The three key elements of that policy are the decommissioning scheme, the cap on the number of days fishing vessels can spend at sea and the penalties on the aggregation or transfer of fishing licences.
We have heard a great deal about days at sea. Because of the court case, which has not been resolved but which has shot everybody's fox, there is to be a void next year. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister said that he has an open mind, but the fact remains that on 1 January everybody will fish like mad and, without constraint, will continue to do the damage that has been getting progressively worse over the years. I hope that my hon. Friend does not allow the political pressures on him to divert him from the essential need to reduce total fishing effort.
I am sure that hon. Members have read the Committee's report—certainly the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has done so. Of course, I hope that he will not always find our reports so useful for quotations to back his case. Nevertheless, there is all-party accord on the issue and the Committee had no difficulty reaching agreement.
The Committee asked a number of questions and we feel that the Government's response has been a holding one. Because of events and because my hon. Friend the Minister has gone around the fishing industry—I know that that has been widely welcomed—he may now feel able to answer some of those questions. The Committee commented on the absolute need to base future policy on research and on the question of how technical conservation measures and gear selectivity can be carried out.
We want to know how that is progressing. Some £18 million of taxpayers' money is being spent on research annually. We visited two laboratories and found that the Scottish one was in much closer in touch with its fishermen. The west country fishermen made the genuine complaint that they did not feel that the scientists from Lowestoft understood their problems.
The accession of Spain and Portugal will cause my hon. Friend the Minister considerable difficulty as both have made it clear that they expect a sympathetic hearing. When we visited La Coruña we saw the vast fishing industry which operates on that part of the Spanish coast. It is on a scale that we do not see in the United Kingdom. The Spanish have more than 19,000 fishing vessels. On my last visit to Portugal, I looked out of my hotel window in the middle of the night and counted 43 fishing vessels. I concede that they were small and probably single-handed operations, but what I saw reflected the number of people in those two countries who were involved in the industry.
The question of taking the matter onshore and examining the social aspects has not yet been mentioned today.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Front-Bench spokesmen have taken up more than half the debate, may I, through you, appeal for short speeches in order to allow Back Benchers the maximum participation? Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so brevity would assist everyone, especially the fishing industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): On this occasion, the Chair cannot dictate the length of speeches, but the point is well taken.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: I have never been accused of making long speeches, but my Committee spent nearly a year on the matter and produced a full and comprehensive report. I do not think that any Conservative members of the Committee will speak in the debate, so I hope that I will cover what I hope has been an important contribution to the general debate.
One of the functions of a Select Committee that is not always observed is its ability to collect the relevant evidence from the various interested organisations. I hope that hon. Members will have a good look at some of that evidence because much work was put into gathering it, not just by us but by the contributing organisations.
I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether he would say a little about the Government's attitude to fishing dependent areas and what will happen to them as their industry declines, as it surely will, either because measures have to be taken or because the fish are simply no longer there. It is no good dodging the issue; one must face up to it.
Another question concerns the collection and presentation of economic data. We were surprised to find that, unlike in farming, where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can give the economic returns on various farms in various parts of the country, evidence from the economic returns on fishing is poor—the cost of vessels and all that goes into preparing a proper economic background.
Finally, I come to the Committee's recommendations with which the Government did not agree. The decommissioning issue has had a full airing to which I shall not add my comments, except to say that I understand that, according to a press release from the Ministry, 142 vessels are likely to be decommissioned in the first year, reducing the capacity by a mere 2·5 per cent. That surely is the root cause of the problem of decommissioning—at the end of the day, it is only the worst, the least efficient and the oldest vessels that are taken out of use. The French, in the port of Lorient, gave us similar figures showing that a large number of vessels have been taken out of commission with practically no effect on the total numbers or quantity of fish caught.
It gives me little pleasure to see disarray creep into the Government's policy on days at sea, even though my Committee came down strongly against it. We have been quoted several times. We believe that it would be an inherently unfair policy, more particularly when no other country in the EC was subjected to a similar regime. Unsurprisingly, the French told us that there was no question of their being able to make such a policy work, even if it were to be imposed centrally.
We shall fall short of our MAGP target. That will not be for the first time, but if we have the fishermen's interests at heart the Government must take some steps to reduce fishing effort. I am sorry that I cannot persuade anyone that ITQs are a solution. The fishermen's organisations were against them, but I am not sure that they truly understood the great benefits of quotas. Quotas for milk and sheep have been widely welcomed—perhaps one should suggest abolishing them to see what the reaction would be.
Mrs. Ewing: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about ITQs because, obviously, he has not understood the significance of that aspect of policy for the fishermen whom my hon. Friends and I represent, many of whose boats are small family fishing businesses. ITQs would inevitably mean that those fishermen were bought out, thus destroying the fishing industry as we understand it and, as a result, destroying communities.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: The fact remains—the hon. Lady must grasp this point, as everyone in the fishing business must grasp it—that there must be a reduction in the number of vessels, or at least in the number of fish that are caught. If we decide in advance that there will be a fixed quantity of fish and give everyone an allocation, we shall, first, do a great deal to prevent waste and, secondly, and perhaps most important, give the fishermen an economic alternative to fishing. They will have the quota to sell. That is what happened in the milk industry. It is exactly what is happening in the sheep farming industry. It is a way of fixing production when otherwise there is absolutely no control.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to reject ITQs. With a little organisation and understanding, they may prove to be far and away the most simple way of handling this most obscure and difficult problem.
9.10 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: Each time we debate fisheries, the uncertainty becomes greater. Each year, the complexities become even worse. This year, the matter has been further obscured by the court case. Although I do not have many serious complaints about the length of the Front-Bench speeches—the Minister and the Opposition spokesman took many interventions and fisheries are not an easy matter to deal with—those speeches took one hour and 31 minutes out of a debate lasting two hours and 41 minutes.
The Leader of the House is here and he should take note that it is not good enough to squeeze issues into half a day's debate. We cannot discuss them properly. We have a debate in shorthand. We have to take a view and stick by it instead of discussing the issues rationally. Only by rational discussion shall we get ourselves out of the mess that we are in. I was not being over generous to the Minister when I said that I understood his problems in being definitive between now and the time of the final decision on the days-at-sea regulations, yet now that he has been dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that decommissioning is important, he cannot abandon that policy.
All that the Minister has to say when he replies to the debate is, "Yes, in future, decommissioning will have a part to play in the policy." It cannot be otherwise. I accept what he says. Decommissioning alone will not solve the problem. Yet restrictions on fishing effort alone will not solve the problem either—unless he is fixed on a policy of driving down the size of the fleet through bankruptcy, and all the problems that that brings with it. Decommissioning and restrictions must go hand in hand. The Minister must make it clear that decommissioning will be an even more important part of the policy.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned the small proportion of fishing effort that has been taken out as a result of the 142 acceptances of decommissioning. That demonstrates the problem.

921
There were 433 applications. Even at the present rate of growth, the three years would be taken up by the applications before anything else happened. It is vital that we have an extended decommissioning scheme.
Of course, we must consider different fishing methods and how we should proceed. I accept that there is no possible way in which we can approach the problem by abandoning total allowable catches and quotas. That is a deficiency in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation document. We cannot go back to a world in which there are no controls, in which people simply go out and fish and conservation is done by voluntary effort.
A programme on television the other night showed what had happened to the Canadian fishing industry. The producers went around the fishing ports in Canada and the film showed the absolute devastation that had occurred. It is in order to avoid that devastation that we all want a rational policy. I hope that the Minister will make it clear at the end of the debate, so that there is no poison in the atmosphere, that a proper discussion is being had with the industry. I plead again for an increase in decommissioning.
I shall make only one more point because I am not like the after-dinner speaker who said that he had not known what was expected of him so he had prepared a long speech and a short speech and had decided to give both. I shall give only the short one. A useful proposal has been made on monitoring and inspection in other EC countries. Yet we have heard all this before. For goodness' sake, it must stick this time. There must be a proper inspection and control policy in other fishing nations. I know that other people do not always play by the book.
In terms of black landings or trying to pull a fast one, the fishermen of the north-east coast are no more saints than the fishermen in the south-west or anywhere else. However, our fishermen are still a damned sight better than those in most of the other countries. We demand parity, and I hope controlled parity, of inspection. That is one of the most important measures to take forward.
In a sense, the court case presents a window of opportunity that should be used to discuss and present rational policies. I hope that the Government will grasp that opportunity and will not ruin the relationships that have been built up. Under the ministry of the present Minister, there has been a change in attitude. Discussion has been much freer and there has been much more willingness to listen. My problem is that, although Ministers have listened a good deal, so far they have not given very much. In that respect, I hope that the future will be a bit better for fishermen.
9.15 pm
Mr. David Harris: It is a pleasure to know that you are chairing this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am aware of your constituency interest in fishing, especially that which is practised from the Barbican. 1 am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, has left the Chamber because, although I welcomed the general thrust of his Committee's investigation and report, I wished to take him to task over some of his remarks.
In his reference to the importance of the industry, my hon. Friend may have given the wrong impression by stating just the bald output figure. Of course, the industry is of much greater significance than just the total value of
922
its catch. The jobs of many people on shore depend on the catch, but it goes much wider than that because our lifeboats are manned by fishermen and the very fabric of many villages and fishing ports depends on fishing. If the industry were taken away, not only the ports but communities that have been there for generations would decline. Therefore, there is also an important social side to the industry.
I am afraid that I must also take my hon. Friend to task over his remarks about the quality of representation of the fishing industry in the west country. My hon. Friend may have been getting at me: I do not know. Some fine people lead the industry in the west country and in that context I took exception to some of my hon. Friend's remarks.
The Minister's announcement of the suspension of the days-at-sea restrictions has been greeted—certainly in the west country and, I suspect, all around our coasts—by relief rising to jubilation. I hope that the suspension of the scheme marks the end of the whole concept of the days-at-sea restrictions. My position and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) is well known. We have been opposed to the days-at-sea scheme because we think that it is unfair and unworkable.
I have always told the industry that there is no point in just opposing the scheme but that it has to present viable alternative proposals. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations should be given full credit for doing just that in a comprehensive document that went far beyond what many of us expected from the industry. The industry did not present a soft option but a well-thought-out scheme that would cause pain to the industry. That is because one cannot tackle the problem of conservation without painful measures. There is no easy way if the policy is to work.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has listened to the industry and tried to work with it. In the void created by his announcement today, I urge him to do as he has promised and hold serious talks with the industry both in England and Wales and in Scotland. I know that there is a divergence between the approaches to the problem in those two parts of the United Kingdom, but I believe that the way forward is contained in the NFFO document.
That document is not the complete answer, but it suggests, for example, the concept of closed areas, in which fishing would be restricted or even completely stopped, especially during the spawning season. That would be a courageous step and, although it would cause pain to fishermen, I believe that the Minister would be well advised to consider such proposals with great care. I am sure that they represent a better way forward than the days-at-sea restrictions, if only because if the Minister moves in that general direction he will have the general backing of the industry, whereas if by any chance he reverts to restrictions on days at sea, he will be on a confrontation course.
The NFFO is to be congratulated on its courage in taking the Government to court, at considerable financial risk to itself. I have always maintained that it was right to pursue its opposition in every constitutional way that it thought fit. I have always made it clear that I utterly opposed the actions of some fishermen who blockaded ports and invaded and occupied Ministry offices; indeed, I believe that those actions were illegal. However, although I deplore such direct action, which caused many other

923
people inconvenience, to say the least, I heartily applaud the way in which the NFFO took the matter to the courts and I am pleased with the outcome.
I shall now switch—quickly, because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate—to discussing the two issues before Ministers at the Fisheries Council, which have already been well rehearsed tonight. The first of those issues, which concerns the total allowable catch and the quotas, has special significance for the south-west, where it is causing alarm. I shall not go into all the details, because my colleagues and I have already met the Minister to press the case being made, especially by the Cornwall fish producers organisations, for changes in the proposals before Ministers.
Three major species would be affected if the proposals took effect. First, the Commission proposes a cut of up to 50 per cent. in the hake quota. Some countries, such as Ireland, benefit from the hake preference, whereas the south-west does not, and they will have their position safeguarded at the expense of my fishermen. The other species are monkfish and megrim. Channel cod and sole would also be affected to some extent. I do not have time to go into the details, but I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well seized of the point.
The other danger, for which we in the south-west are in the front line, is Spanish, and to some extent Portuguese, accession, with those countries' consequential claim for greater penetration of the waters of the south-west, especially in the Irish box—the waters between the south-west and Ireland. That is extremely worrying for our fishermen, especially as it comes on top of the history of flag-of-convenience boats.
We have lived with the Spanish presence in our waters and we know what it means. As other hon. Members have said, the Spaniards completely disregard the rules on conservation. We have seen many examples of the tricks that they get up to, such as false holds, and catching undersized fish. This week I was delighted to hear that, in your own city, Madam Deputy Speaker, the court imposed a large fine on a Spanish boat that had been caught and, perhaps more significantly, suspended for two years its licence to fish in our waters. We want more of that when dealing with the Spaniards.
I would not be so crude as to use the phrase "double whammy", but our fishermen face a serious double threat of a possible reduction in the quotas of important species in the south-west and possible increased fishing by the Spaniards in the waters around our coasts. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do everything possible to remove those threats, although the House understands that he may be outvoted.
There is no real danger of the Spaniards gaining access to the North sea, partly because the alliance of member states is determined to keep them out, because they have never had access to those waters. The Irish box waters are a different matter and that is why the fishermen of the south-west feel so vulnerable. That is why I look to the Minister to defend their interests.
9.25 pm
Mr. James Wallace: It always seems to fall to me to follow the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I agreed with much that he said. He was right
924
to point out that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), in his capacity of Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, missed the point: that, although the catching side of the industry is important to many communities, the onshore jobs that that sector creates are just as important.
Those who are worried about any move towards individual transferable quotas, ITQs, are concerned that those quotas would be concentrated on a relatively small number of communities. That would not only lead to the loss of catching capacity in other communities, but the loss of onshore jobs. The whole fabric of many remote communities, where alternative employment is not readily found, would be damaged.
I do not intend to criticise the Minister for the time he took. He got his defence in early when he said that he would take interventions, but he would not take criticism. I accept that.
The time taken up by the contributions from the Front-Bench spokesmen and other hon. Members demonstrates that three hours is inadequate for a debate on fishing. In fact, tonight we are holding two debates, possibly even three. The first debate is the normal one held in advance of the December meeting of the Fisheries Council. We are also debating the contents of the Select Committee report. It would have been far better to separate those debates, although no doubt hon. Members will have an opportunity to repeat some of the points raised tonight in tomorrow's sitting of European Standing Committee A.
The 1994 TACs will be negotiated at the weekend. They are still clouded in mystery because the negotiations with Norway are not yet complete, unless something has happened within the past 12 hours. I understand that the Norwegians have made substantial demands with regard to some of the pelagic species. I hope that our Ministers and officials will be firm in their negotiations with them and the House will, I am sure, do anything that it can tonight to strengthen the hand of the Minister.
An important factor with regard to the pelagic fishery is the continuation of the flexibility across the 4 deg. line. In recent years that has had an important part to play in that fishery and I hope that it is kept in place. I have made representations to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that there is nothing special about the cut-off date of 31 December. Last year, after that date had passed, we suffered exceptionally bad weather, as I am sure hon. Members will remember. Fishermen were forced to make hazardous journeys to ports on the west coast of Scotland because they were not allowed to land their catches for trans-shipment at ports such as Lerwick because the flexibility had ended on 31 December. I know that the Under-Secretary was sympathetic to my representations when he responded earlier this year and, as a result of negotiations, I hope that he manages to obtain even more flexibility than we have had to date.
Every year, the same cry goes up, that there appears to be inconsistency and mystery about the basis on which the white fish TACs are recommended by the scientific community. This year it has been suggested that the haddock quota will go up while the cod and whiting quotas will be reduced. According to some of the scientific state of the art information, although it is accepted that cod and haddock stocks are under potential threat, the same cannot be said of whiting stocks. Why then is it proposed to increase the haddock TAC and reduce the whiting one?

925
There has to be some rationale introduction into that. We should recognise, too, that if there is a reduced cod quota and an increased haddock quota, when the two can be caught together, one is inviting illegal cod to be landed. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House, and the responsible parts of the industry, would strongly condemn that. Likewise, the experience of the fishermen is that saithe is in relative abundance and that perhaps the United Kingdom quota has been understated in past years. That is a continuing source of some concern, which I hope will be addressed this weekend.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Hams) referred also to the savage reduction in the TAC for hake. The reduction is of concern to fishermen not only in the south-west but in Scotland, as it is a very large cut for those communities which are dependent on fishing to take in one go. The important point is that it appears—certainly to the fishermen—that much of the reason for the reduction in the availability of hake is not due to anything that they have done; it is due to the intense pressure by Spanish and French fishing vessels. The proposals of the NFFO is that the TAC should be broken down into tighter management areas, or subdivision of existing areas. In that way, there may be an opportunity for our fishermen, particularly in the south-west, to be able to continue to prosecute the fishery —they have done that responsibly—and not have to suffer additionally for what effectively has been the over-fishing by others.
The question of hake take us on to the important issue of the Spanish and Portuguese Acts of Accession. We have seen the depletion of stocks of western hake following on from a moratorium on southern hake because of the gross over-fishing by the fishing vessels of those countries off the Spanish and Portuguese coasts and the south bay of Biscay.
I would challenge just how wide it is legally responsible for the European Union to go in amending the Act of Accession. It has been suggested that it may relate only to the basic list of vessels and to a consideration of the Irish box and that it would not be legally competent to extend the Act to the North sea, where there are also other factors —the Spanish have no track record in the North sea. If, as has been suggested, they are to have open access, but we are still going to maintain relative stability, it is not worth their while to come into the North sea, because they have no quota to fish. That suggests why the issue should not even be opened up. The concern must be that, if they have any access, it will be difficult to police, despite all the fine words and safeguards that have been mentioned.
The issue of fishing in the Irish box must concern my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). We are in a very different situation now from when the Acts of Accession were originally agreed. We have far fewer fish. We are in an era of conservation. It seems difficult to justify greater access for Spanish vessels to the Irish box at a time when we are having to reduce substantially the quota for one of the main species to be fished in that box.
I hope that the Minister will introduce his own proposals and win friends to support them. He was honest in saying that the industry has to know that he cannot necessarily deliver on this, but it appeared to me that he was making his alibi before he had even lost. I hope that he will not lose and that he will not be outvoted by 11 to one. I hope that he will try to win friends and get a solution that will satisfy the industry.
926
I shall now refer to the issue that has dominated much of the debate—days at sea—and the announcement that we had earlier from the Minister. I shall not repeat all the reasons why the days at sea restrictions have been strongly opposed, not only by the industry but by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and by my party quite consistently. If the Minister had looked up only a few copies of Hansard he would have found out where we stood on the issue.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) suggested that the decision of the High Court was neutral. In a very technical and legal sense, it was. But if we examine what it said, it criticised the says at sea legislation on a number of grounds, queried whether it would do anything for conservation, and said that the legislation would severely prejudice the value of fishing vessels. It was not neutral in some of those comments. The Select Committee report uses strong words about the days at sea proposals and those words are repeated in the Labour party's amendment.
Where is the Government's policy on conservation after today's announcement? We have a suspended days at sea policy, a yellow card has been shown to the decommissioning scheme and the Minister lightly dismissed some of the technical measures. Basically, there is an effort to expedite the proceedings in the European Court of Justice and a chat with the European Commissioner.
We need a commitment to the continuation of the decommissioning scheme. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that we have to reduce capacity, but to imply that the decommissioning scheme may not continue. He said that decommissioning is all very well, but that we need something to back it up so that the good of decommissioning is not undone, and we accept that. However, in the arguments before the High Court, reference was made to a report by the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which showed that even the much-criticised decommissioning scheme in the 1980s reduced the overall fishing effort. It did not lead to an increase in fishing effort and was relatively successful. Therefore, decommissioning is one way to tackle the problem. It reduces capacity.
If the Minister wants to know how much we would spend on such a scheme, I answered that question at a press conference, given during the last general election campaign in a hotel in Aberdeen. I leave it to his researchers to find it out, because it was well publicised. [Laughter.] It was sufficiently well publicised in Scotland that we won far more seats in fishing areas than did the Conservative party.
The Minister should not dismisss some of the technical measures suggested by the NFFO and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and many other bodies representing fishermen. He took only one specific from the NFFO's submission, but it suggested a whole range of other measures. I am sure that he has that submission in front of him. Other proposals include closure areas, the licensing of the industry and a minimum landing size.
He has a large agenda on which he can have discussions with the industry. If he does that in a constructive spirit, it can come up with proposals which will mean that days-at-sea restrictions will not be necessary. It is important to recognise that these are alternative proposals and that they should not be latched on to days-at-sea restrictions. If the Minister abandons days-at-sea and says that decommissioning is here to stay, he will achieve the

927
necessary good will and constructive approach to enable the industry to go forward, co-operating with the Government and getting in place some effective conservation measures.
9.37pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for visiting the north of Ireland and the fishing ports of my constituency, where he took part in a robust exchange of views, which was of benefit to both sides. It is an indictment of the management of the fishing industry to do what I have done—stand on the beach and watch the burning of viable ships. The last time that happened in Ireland was when the Vikings drew their longships up to the Strang fjord and set them alight. Such actions are an appalling sign of the state of the fishing fleets of the north of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Like other fishing communities, those in the north of Ireland are opposed to the days-at-sea concept set out in the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992. They see it not as a conservation measure but as a fleet limitation or fleet reduction programme based on the multi-annual guidance programme.
One aspect of the decommissioning scheme that has not been mentioned today—I do not want to repeat what has been said about conservation—is that we need to have efficient, economic fishing units. We know that there is a limited catch, so fewer units of catch or production should pursue it. That is an additional reason why decommissioning should be a continuing part of the Government's policy. For those who continue in the industry, there should be a smaller number of vessels so that the economics of fishing are more sustainable than they can be when the catch is spread among a greater number of vessels. I endorse what other hon. Members have said. I hope that the decommissioning scheme will not only continue for the second and third years but be substantially enhanced.
The fishermen of Northern Ireland are diametrically opposed to the so-called conservation measure of tied-up boats. They see it as an uneven and unjust system. It is galling for the fishermen of Kilkeel and Ardglas to look out two or three miles across Carlingford lough and see Republic of Ireland fishermen fishing to their hearts' content without restriction. That is a mockery of the European concept of fish conservation.
Northern Ireland fishermen want equality of treatment. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture mentioned his visits to Portugal and Spain, where he saw the enormous Spanish fishing fleet. It is interesting that for that enormous Spanish fleet there are only 17 fishing inspectors, all of whom are based in the land-locked city of Madrid. We have 285 fish inspectors. It is a charade to say that there is any degree of enforcement against the Spanish and the Portuguese.
As other hon. Members have said, those fishing fleets strongly impinge in the Irish box and the Irish sea fishing areas. Between them, France, Spain and Portugal take 88 per cent. of the catch in those areas, leaving only 12 per cent. for the indigenous fishing industry.
Local fishermen do not feel that they are being listened to. They do not feel that their experience at sea and their knowledge of fish shoaling is sufficiently taken on board.
928
They are convinced that, in many instances, the scientific evidence is flawed, yet it appears to be the rock base on which all decisions are made. Will the Minister take the local fishermen's practical experience and knowledge on board, as well as the scientific evidence, when he comes to agree and fix quotas?
As to TACs, year after year the quota of the Republic of Ireland is not used, particularly of whiting. It is ludicrous —our boats are tied up and unable to fish because they have caught their quota, while our neighbours 10 miles down the coast do not achieve their permissible quota. Will the Minister use his position to contact his opposite number in the Republic of Ireland and ask him to transfer to the Northern Ireland fishermen the quota of the Republic's catch that it does not anticipate making this year? Such transfers have happened in the past. He should also make that a more permanent feature, rather than a gratuitous year-by-year endeavour; he might well find a willing ear.
The reductions that have been made will strike yet another devastating blow at the Irish fishing industry. I cannot go into all the details. Let me confine my remarks to the subject of herring, which has merely been touched on. The industry has been diminished almost to extinction and fishermen on the east coast of Ireland feel that the closure of the Douglas bank area from 21 September does not represent proper management. They strongly believe that, because the herring season has come later in the year than it used to, the Douglas bank closure should also take place later. The stocks are substantial, and I know that a review is in progress. It may be finished by June next year. I hope, however, that the results of the reconsideration will be implemented before September 1994.
I wish to draw attention to the plight of the fishing industry and the social consequences mentioned by the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. A report prepared by the United Kingdom Sea Fish Industry Authority, entitled "Regional, Socio-Economic Study by the Fisheries Sector", states:
"Here"—
in Northern Ireland—
"there are currently very few alternative employment opportunities. Perhaps this is one area where the maintenance of fish and related industry employment should be a priority".
I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
I welcomed the Minister's announcement that the implementation of the days at sea provision would be abandoned for the duration of the court hearing at The Hague, but I support the contention of other hon. Members that that constitutes—de facto, if not de jure—the abandonment of an ill-conceived scheme that did not fulfil the purpose for which it was intended. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter in general, abandon the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 and give us a new set of proposals based on many of the fine ideas presented to him by the various fishing organisations, and by others, with their co-operation.
Ultimately, our fishermen know very well that it is in their interests for fishing to continue into the next century. They are more concerned about conservation than any of us. Given the chance, they will produce the real measures that will sustain both the industry and fish quantities. We need a partnership between the Government and the industry that will continue into the 21st century.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends and I represent more than half

929
the Scottish fishing industry, which in turn represents rather more than half the United Kingdom industry. Is it not rather absurd that the procedures of the House do not even allow us to contribute properly to the annual fishing debate?
Madam Speaker: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and with other hon. Members representing fishing industries who have not been called tonight. I have looked at the list, and I appreciate that—although there were many interventions on the opening speeches—the two Front-Bench speakers took up an hour and 24 minutes. That is a considerable time, given the shortness of the debate.
9.49 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: Following on from that point of order, with which I have some sympathy, I should like to put on record my anger at the fact that the debate covers three separate issues. Ministers should have responded to the court case in a proper statement to the House. The matter should not have been dealt with by a written answer just before this important debate. There should have been adequate time for a considered response to the Select Committee report, which contains a great deal of work and many important suggestions and recommendations that ought to have been considered more carefully and in more time than we have had.
The real reason why we do not have time to discuss issues is the Government's contempt for procedures and for proper democratic scrutiny. It is not as if we are short of time in the parliamentary Session. The Government would rather run on auto-pilot than have Members of Parliament scrutinising legislation and discussing matters in a sensible way. Given that contempt, is it any surprise that relations have broken down between the usual channels? If that attitude continues, normal relations will not be restored for some time.
Mrs. Ewing: I speak as an hon. Member for whom the usual channels have no implications. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the usual attitude of both Front Benches allows a debate on such a vital industry to be compressed every year into a short period shortly in advance of the Fisheries Council, where fundamental decisions are taken that affect our communities? Surely there must be a better way forward. Although Standing Committee A will help, there should be a full debate in the House at least twice a year on the fishing industry.
Mr. Morley: The problem is more to do with the procedures than with the Front-Bench speakers. In all fairness to the Minister, he allowed a great many interventions in his speech and made it clear that he was doing so.
The main points that I should like to address, which we have not had time properly to debate or scrutinise are the allocation of total allowable catches and the quota that the United Kingdom fishing industry will get at the outcome of the Fisheries Council. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider those issues when he replies.
Under the draft proposals for the North sea, the haddock allocation is to be reduced by 28 per cent., there is to be a marginal increase in the cod allocation, the whiting allocation is to be decreased by 25 per cent. and the plaice allocation is to be decreased by 16 per cent. There is a
930
potential problem with mixed fisheries of that kind. There is also a certain inconsistency to the scientific advice about the allocations. I remember a few years ago when the Minister said that scientists were recommending that whiting catches should be increased on the ground that whiting was a predator of cod stocks. Now it seems that whiting catches must be decreased. Such inconsistency makes one wary of that sort of scientific advice.
If there are to be mixed fisheries in the North sea and the haddock allocation is to be increased by 28 per cent., there will be problems in terms of discards of cod and whiting. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind at the Council of Ministers and try to equalise the figures so that the industry can operate on a more managed basis. Given the reduction in the plaice allocation in area 7 and given that plaice is traditionally used as a swap in negotiations with the Fisheries Council, a reduction in the allocation by 16 per cent. would inevitably restrict what the Minister can do.
The main problem for the south-west area is the dramatic proposed cut in the hake quota, to which several hon. Members referred. We all know that one reason for the proposed cuts has been the pressure on the hake stocks exerted by the Spanish vessels and the illegal catching of undersized hake.
I add my congratulations to those which have been expressed at the fact that at least one vessel has been adequately dealt with by a two-year suspension of its licence. I welcome that firm action on a vessel that was breaking every rule in the book and was caught red handed. We know that the Spanish presence is one reason why there is a suggestion that there should be a reduction in the monkfish allocation. I understand that we fish up to our full allocation of monkfish, but other member states do not. That is due to the attention of many Spanish vessels.
On the west coast there is a problem with the suggestion of a major reduction—about 66 per cent.—in the cod quota. I listened carefully to the Minister's comments about the pressure on west coast stocks and I acknowledge that point. Nevertheless, he will be aware that, if we have a quota reduction on that scale, there is a danger of the hake preference being implemented. That would mean that United Kingdom fishermen would lose out to the Republic of Ireland. That would affect the Northern Ireland fishery. That is a serious problem. If that preference were implemented, our total share of the cod catch in the west coast area would decline from 42·7 to 28·3 per cent. I hope that the Minister will do everything he can to ensure that the hake preference is not implemented in the west coast area and that our fishing industry in that area is protected.
The treaty of accession for Spain and Portugal has been mentioned. The point has been well made. I endorse and support the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members about the implications of having Spanish and Portuguese vessels operating in what was the former Irish box area.
In the limited time left to me, I should like to deal with the High Court case. That is crucial in terms of planning future fisheries policy and meeting multi-annual guidance programmes. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations did the industry a favour by taking the case to the High Court and being successful. I remind the Minister that it was supported by Northern Ireland fishing organisations and, although the Scottish fishermen did not

931
contribute financially, I know from talks with many in the Scottish industry, that they are pleased with the outcome and the reference to the European Court.
However, that court case should not have happened. We should not have been in a position in which the Government were taken to court by fishermen's organisations because a policy was unpopular and despised and was considered unworkable. We warned the Government that the days-at-sea measures were unpopular, unworkable and of debatable value. We argued that the Government should be seeking co-operation with the industry for a package of measures with an effective decommissioning scheme at its heart. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said, we recognise that when dealing with effort limitation and conservation we must have a package of measures. Whatever we have, an effective decommissioning scheme must be a central part of it.
We also want to see measures such as the technical measures that the industry has been challenged to come up with—it has responded favourably to that challenge. We want to look at closed areas, particularly spawning areas, and we want to see effective management agreements and enforcement. Over the years, our position has been backed by a House of Lords Select Committee report, every industry producer organisation, every industry fishing association, the processors and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent fishing communities.
Mr. Sebastian Coe: I do not wish to intrude on private grief, but the hon. Gentleman is suggesting a slight change in the history of those debates. The discussion tonight on days-at sea would have been irrelevant had it not been for the ill-discipline of Opposition Members on the night the orders were before the House, when 20 or so Opposition Members could not stay behind for a three-line Whip to get rid of the proposals.
Mr. Morley: That is nonsense. If a few more hon. Members from fishing constituencies had joined us in the Lobby, the measures might have been defeated. Those measures should never have been rammed through the House without the Government having listened to the reasonable arguments expressed on both sides of the House. It is yet another example of the Government's not giving proper consideration to other people's views or allowing proper scrutiny of Bills, with the result that they face a humiliating U-turn in the courts.
The Government should deal with the matter more effectively. When the Minister heard the court result, he initially shrugged if off by saying that the fish had lost the case. I am only glad that he did not blame single parent fish, as single parents seem to be blamed for all the Government's problems. The Minister now says that he is regrouping after the court loss. It is not regrouping but retreating. His measures were shot down in flames as they did not stand up to critical examination.
I remind the Minister of the evidence that was put before the High Court and influenced its decision to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. The court accepted evidence that the days-at-sea measures were unfair and were in the interests of neither the market nor conservation. The court went on to consider the fact that
932
the Government had chosen to rely on using market forces rather than on decommissioning. Market forces operated by expanding rather than reducing the United Kingdom fleet. The use of market forces and blind dogmatism, rather than sensible regulation and co-operation with various sectors of industry, are not unique to the fishing industry. The Government have used market forces in other legislation, with the same disastrous results.
It is not too late for the Government to think again about the whole matter. It is not good enough for the Minister to talk about the failure of the original decommissioning scheme, which was designed for different kinds of ships and was poorly implemented and supervised. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was the Minister responsible for that scheme at the time. It is therefore unreasonable to suggest that this decommissioning scheme should be tarred with the same brush.
If we are to manage the conservation of our fisheries effectively, it must be done with the industry's co-operation. It must have the support of those who will carry out the measures, and the measures must be effective, fair and justified. The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 never fulfilled those criteria.
I hope that when the Minister negotiates a workable conservation scheme with his European colleagues, he will recognise that the industry has responded to his request for suggestions and has made detailed proposals. As he knows, it has trialled many of the experiments with technical conservation gear, with encouraging results, and I believe that they can be built on further.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that he has lost the heart of the Bill and needs to think again about those measures. Rather than being dominated by blind dogmatism and an arrogant disregard for the democratic procedures of the House, he should sit down with the industry to discuss its suggestions seriously and bring forward proposals that will command respect, benefit our fishing industry and properly conserve our fish stocks.
10.3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): This has been a valuable debate and many constructive points have come out of it. However, it is fair to say that the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) was extremely important. It highlighted, from a top-of-the-mountain view, the fact that conservation is desperately important and that no one had come forward in the debate with constructive ideas on how to meet the same effort control that may have been taken out by the loss of the days-at-sea restriction.
This is a most important subject, especially for the highlands and islands of Scotland, where there is little alternative employment. That is why the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was right to say that we must consider the interests of onshore and offshore concerns alike—including the processors and, ultimately, the housewife, who is the important customer of the fishing industry.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister find time to respond to what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) described as the crisis in the Scottish salmon industry? I know that the Minister has many topics to cover, but he must know that that crisis is profound. Will he at least tell the industry that the

933
Government regard the status quo as unacceptable and that they will return to the European Community to try to obtain stronger safeguards?
Sir Hector Monro: Certainly the salmon industry is very important to Scotland, particularly to the area that the hon. Gentleman represents. We have a minimum import price which is lower than I would like, and a reference price, which will come in on 1 January and which I hope will be much higher. I appreciate the fact that 6,000 jobs are at risk in Scotland if the salmon industry does not flourish. That is why it is important to make every effort inthe Commission and the Community to find the right solution.
Norway is producing 180,000 tonnes, while Scotland produces 45,000, and we have been swamped this autumn by sales from Norway to the continent. That has had a serious impact on the price. We are holding regular talks with the Commissioner; the Minister is in touch with Commissioner Paleokrassas, and I hope that there will be a chance to raise the matter next week at the Council in Brussels.
Fish are an important natural resource and most of our stocks are under great pressure. We have to reduce the amount of fish being landed—a fact that was not disputed when the court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice. We know that there are no easy or painless solutions and that we cannot rely solely on technical measures or on gear selectivity.
In the coming weeks and months, we must review in detail the many constructive ideas suggested by the Scottish and English industries and by the independent bodies that responded to the consultative document, in an attempt to find the right solution, both to restrict fishing and to make certain that our fishermen operate a profitable industry.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Hector Monro: I will not. I have only a few minutes left, and members of the hon. Gentleman's party have intervened umpteen times in this debate.
The industry is beginning to realise that effective measures to control effort are essential, and we must work together to put something in place as soon as possible. Everyone accepts that days at sea are out for the count, at least for the coming year, so, like last January, the industry will be starting with a clean sheet.
What steps can the industry take? I should like to comment on the black fish landings that are prevalent in Scotland and are the cause of major worry to leaders in the industry. Sophisticated organisations are handling black fish and transporting them south to the processors. That must stop; it is getting us a bad reputation in the European Community. We give credit to the officials in the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency who have helped to run the industry, as have others. They have made progress in enforcing the provisions. This year, there have been 94 successful prosecutions over a nine-month period, compared with 78 last year over a 12-month period. 'The black fish issue is a sad development that undermines the future of our industry.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Hector Monro: No, the hon. Lady has intervened several times.
934
The recent court decision to refer the days at sea restrictions to the European Court was not a victory for fishermen and was a major setback for conservation. We must find something to put in place, and it will take quite a long time to achieve that. We shall examine urgently what measures—technical and effort control—are available and have discussions with the industry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has frequent meetings with representatives of the industry in England, as I do in Scotland—and will be doing so again this week. It is extremely important to establish a policy which is acceptable to the industry and the Commission and which, most importantly, will have an impact on conservation.
Important issues concerning Spain and Portugal have been raised in the debate. The efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister are beyond criticism. He raised the issue in the October meeting of the Council and put a stop to the efforts of other countries to force the issue through. The discussions continued through the November Council, and we shall return to the subject next week when he and I shall be in Brussels representing the Government.
Mrs. Ewing rose—
Sir Hector Monro: I shall not give way.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, there is no doubt that we shall do everything possible to ensure that the view of the United Kingdom Government prevails. We have made it absolutely clear that we shall not accept a blank cheque. We do not wish to see additional fishing in the North sea and we want relative stability to be retained. We want to ensure that the review that has to take place now only comes into force in 1996, with amendments to the policy that are acceptable to us—including a decision to consider the Irish box, which expires on 1 December 1995. The Belgian presidency is working on an alternative and I hope that we can consider that issue in a constructive light next week.
I emphasise that the United Kingdom view is firm and that we shall be fighting as hard as possible for our fishermen.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Earlier, I asked the Minister of State about the need to supervise other maritime industries to ensure that they did not impinge badly on the fishing industry. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the installation of the gas pipeline between the south of Scotland and Northern Ireland does not damage the interests of our fishermen who fish those waters?
Sir Hector Monro: I heard the hon. Gentleman's question when he originally asked it. I have been unable in the intervening time to establish exactly what contact the fishing industry has had with the gas and oil industry. Normally, the relationship is good, and we shall follow up the issue and ensure that no unnecessary hiccups occur in the pipeline between Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I emphasise the importance of next week's negotiations in relation to Spain and Portugal, and the issue of catches and quotas. There is immense pressure on the west coast —the haddock stock will certainly go down in the Irish sea and the western approaches, whereas it will go up in the North sea. I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that discards are worrying—it is unattractive to

935
see good fish wasted. The problem is how to enforce quotas if we do not have strict regulations covering the catches that are taken ashore.
There has been much discussion about decommissioning. It is fair to say that the current scheme has been successful. It involved 140 boats, or 5,400 tonnes, of which 46 boats, or 1,400 tonnes, came from Scotland. I cannot understand why Labour Members are so suspicious when we discuss decommissioning. If we are considering overall fishing policy, we should consider decommissioning as well.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Sir Hector Monro: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Salmond: Why not?
Sir Hector Monro: Because the hon. Gentleman asks so many damned silly questions.
At a time when we are bringing forward new policies —we hope in conjunction with the English and Scottish fisheries organisations—we must consider all the issues. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, we cannot consider decommissioning alone; it must be done in conjunction with other efforts.
I thought it important that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) put on record the fact that the Labour party is giving a firm pledge to commit £75 million to decommissioning and that it expects that further effort restrictions will be required. I was glad that he also linked decommissioning to effort restrictions. It is important that they are acknowledged as complementary.
I am also glad that the hon. Gentleman and I are as one on the matter of ITQs. The industry is not keen on them. The hon. Gentleman made the point that relatively wealthy areas would buy up the quota, taking it away from the less-well-off areas, especially those in the highlands and islands. Inevitably, that would have a bad effect on fishing in those areas. Hon. Members rightly mentioned dependent areas, which are important in the north. I am glad that objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) are likely to apply. It is important that the highlands and islands now have objective 1 status, plus help from the enterprise companies.
My hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) gave, as I expected, a warm welcome to our decision on days at sea. We will bear in mind what was said about fishing in the western approaches.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred to inspectors from Spain. His facts were not quite right. Spain is recruiting 25 more fisheries officers, with another 25 next year. We are looking carefully at the Douglas bank herring box under the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management review next year.
The house agrees that the fishing industry is vital to many of our coastal communities. It has always played a distinctive part in the economy of these islands. We must take the necessary steps to ensure the long-term future of the industry. The policies promoted by the Government are designed to achieve that objective and I commend the motion to the House.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 312.

Division No. 32]

[10.18pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Denham, John

Adams, Mrs Irene

Dewar, Donald

Ainger, Nick

Dixon, Don

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Dobson, Frank

Allen, Graham

Donohoe, Brain H.

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dowd, Jim

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Armstrong, Hilary

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Ashton, Joe

Eagle, Ms Angela

Austin-Walker, John

Eastham, Ken

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Enright, Derek

Barnes, Harry

Etherington, Bill

Barron, Kevin

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Battle, John

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Bayley, Hugh

Fatchett, Derek

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Faulds, Andrew

Beggs, Roy

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Fisher, Mark

Bell, Stuart

Flynn, Paul

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Foulkes, George

Benton, Joe

Fraser, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Fyfe, Maria

Berry, Dr. Roger

Galloway, George

Betts, Clive

Gapes, Mike

Blair, Tony

Garrett, John

Blunkett, David

George, Bruce

Boateng, Paul

Gerrard, Neil

Boyes, Roland

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bradley, Keith

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Godsiff, Roger

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Golding, Mrs Llin

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

Gould, Bryan

Burden, Richard

Graham, Thomas

Byers, Stephen

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Callaghan, Jim

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gunnell, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hain, Peter

Canavan, Dennis

Hall, Mike

Cann, Jamie

Hanson, David

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hardy, Peter

Clapham, Michael

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hinchliffe, David

Clelland, David

Hoey, Kate

Coffey, Ann

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Cohen, Harry

Home Robertson, John

Connarty, Michael

Hood, Jimmy

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corbett, Robin

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoyle, Doug

Corston, Ms Jean

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cryer, Bob

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cummings, John

Hutton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Ingram, Adam

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Dafis, Cynog

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Davidson, Ian

Jamieson, David

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Janner, Greville

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

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

Jones, Ieaun Wyn (Ynys Môn)

937

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Purchase, Ken

Jowell, Tessa

Quin, Ms Joyce

Keen, Alan

Radice, Giles

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Randall, Stuart

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Raynsford, Nick

Khabra, Piara S.

Redmond, Martin

Kilfoyle, Peter

Reid, Dr John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Rendel, David

Kirkwood, Archy

Richardson, Jo

Leighton, Ron

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lewis, Terry

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Litherland, Robert

Rogers, Allan

Livingstone, Ken

Rooker, Jeff

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Rooney, Terry

Loyden, Eddie

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Rowlands, Ted

McAllion, John

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Salmond, Alex

McCartney, Ian

Sedgemore, Brain

Macdonald, Calum

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McFall, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McGrady, Eddie

Short, Clare

McKelvey, William

Simpson, Alan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

McLeish, Henry

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McMaster, Gordon

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

McWilliam, John

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

Madden, Max

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Snape, Peter

Madel, David

Soley, Clive

Mahon, Alice

Spearing, Nigel

Mandelson, Peter

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Steinberg, Gerry

Martlew, Eric

Stevenson, George

Maxton, John

Stott, Roger

Meacher, Michael

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Meale, Alan

Straw, Jack

Michael, Alun

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Milburn, Alan

Tipping, Paddy

Miller, Andrew

Tyler, Paul

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Vaz, Keith

Morgan, Rhodri

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Morley, Elliot

Wallace, James

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Walley, Joan

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Wareing, Robert N

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Watson, Mike

Mowlam, Marjorie

Welsh, Andrew

Mudie, George

Wicks, Malcolm

Mullin, Chris

Wigley, Dafydd

Murphy, Paul

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Wilson, Brian

O'Hara, Edward

Winnick, David

Olner, William

Wise, Audrey

O'Neill, Martin

Worthington, Tony

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wray, Jimmy

Parry, Robert

Wright, Dr Tony

Patchett, Terry

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Pendry, Tom

Pickthall, Colin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pike, Peter L.

Mr. Dennis Turner and

Pope, Greg

Mr. John Spellar.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Aitken, Jonathan

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Alexander, Richard

Ashby, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Aspinwall, Jack

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Amess, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Ancram, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

938

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bates, Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Batiste, Spencer

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bellingham, Henry

French, Douglas

Bendall, Vivian

Fry, Peter

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gale, Roger

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gallie, Phil

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gardiner, Sir George

Booth, Hartley

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Boswell, Tim

Gamier, Edward

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gill, Christopher

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gillan, Cheryl

Bowden, Andrew

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bowis, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bradley, Keith

Gorst, John

Brazier, Julian

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Bright, Graham

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Grylls, Sir Michael

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Budgen, Nicholas

Hague, William

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butcher, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butler, Peter

Hanley, Jeremy

Butterfill, John

Hannam, Sir John

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Harris, David

Carrington, Matthew

Haselhurst, Alan

Carttiss, Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Cash, William

Hawksley, Warren

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hayes, Jerry

Churchill, Mr

Heald, Oliver

Clappison, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hendry, Charles

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hicks, Robert

Coe, Sebastian

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Colvin, Michael

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Congdon, David

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Conway, Derek

Horam, John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

Cormack, Patrick

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Couchman, James

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cran, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunter, Andrew

Day, Stephen

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jack, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jessel, Toby

Dicks, Terry

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Dover, Den

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan, Alan

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Key, Robert

Dunn, Bob

Kilfedder, Sir James

Durant, Sir Anthony

King, Rt Hon Tom

Dykes, Hugh

Knapman, Roger

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knox, Sir David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Evennett, David

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Faber, David

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fabricant, Michael

Legg, Barry

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Leigh, Edward

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Fishburn, Dudley

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Forman, Nigel

Lidington, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lightbown, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

939

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lord, Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Luff, Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shersby, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Sims, Roger

Maclean, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McLoughlin, Patrick

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Madel, David

Soames, Nicholas

Maitland, Lady Olga

Speed, Sir Keith

Major, Rt Hon John

Spencer, Sir Derek

Malone, Gerald

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Mans, Keith

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Marland, Paul

Spink, Dr Robert

Marlow, Tony

Spring, Richard

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sproat, Iain

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Steen, Anthony

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stephen, Michael

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Stern, Michael

Merchant, Piers

Stewart, Allan

Milligan, Stephen

Streeter, Gary

Mills, Iain

Sumberg, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sweeney, Walter

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Sykes, John

Moate, Sir Roger

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Monro, Sir Hector

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Moss, Malcolm

Temple-Morris, Peter

Needham, Richard

Thomason, Roy

Nelson, Anthony

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Nicholls, Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

Norris, Steve

Tracey, Richard

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Tredinnick, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Trend, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Page, Richard

Twinn, Dr Ian

Paice, James

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Patnick, Irvine

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Patten, Rt Hon John

Walden, George

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Pawsey, James

Waller, Gary

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Ward, John

Pickles, Eric

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Waterson, Nigel

Porter, David (Waveney)

Watts, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wells, Bowen

Powell, William (Corby)

Whitney, Ray

Rathbone, Tim

Whittingdale, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Widdecombe, Ann

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Riddick, Graham

Wilkinson, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Willetts, David

Robathan, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wolfson, Mark

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wood, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Yeo, Tim

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sackville, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House Divided: Ayes 309, Noes 272.

Division No. 33]

[10.34pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Alexander, Richard

Aitken, Jonathan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

940

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Amess, David

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Ancram, Michael

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Arbuthnot, James

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evennett, David

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Faber, David

Ashby, David

Fabricant, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Fishburn, Dudley

Baldry, Tony

Forman, Nigel

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bates, Michael

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Batiste, Spencer

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bellingham, Henry

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bendall, Vivian

French, Douglas

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fry, Peter

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gallie, Phil

Booth, Hartley

Gardiner, Sir George

Boswell, Tim

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Garnier, Edward

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gill, Christopher

Bowden, Andrew

Gillan, Cheryl

Bowis, John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brandreth, Gyles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brazier, Julian

Gorst, John

Bright, Graham

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Burns, Simon

Hague, William

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Butcher, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butler, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butterfill, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hannam, Sir John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carrington, Matthew

Harris, David

Carttiss, Michael

Haselhurst, Alan

Cash, William

Hawkins, Nick

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawksley, Warren

Chapman, Sydney

Hayes, Jerry

Churchill, Mr

Heald, Oliver

Clappison, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hendry, Charles

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hicks, Robert

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Coe, Sebastian

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Colvin, Michael

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Congdon, David

Horam, John

Conway, Derek

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Cormack, Patrick

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Couchman, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cran, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Day, Stephen

Jack, Michael

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jenkin, Bernard

Devlin, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Dickens, Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Duncan, Alan

Key, Robert

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Kilfedder, Sir James

Dunn, Bob

King, Rt Hon Tom

Durant, Sir Anthony

Knapman, Roger

Dykes, Hugh

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

941

Knox, Sir David

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kynoch, Georgee (Kincardine)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sackville, Tom

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Legg, Barry

Shaw, David (Dover)

Leigh, Edward

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shersby, Michael

Lidington, David

Sims, Roger

Lightbown, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lord, Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Speed, Sir Keith

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spencer, Sir Derek

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

MacKay, Andrew

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maclean, David

Spink, Dr Robert

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spring, Richard

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sproat, Iain

Madel, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Malone, Gerald

Steen, Anthony

Mans, Keith

Stephen, Michael

Marland, Paul

Stern, Michael

Marlow, Tony

Stewart, Allan

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Streeter, Gary

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Sumberg, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sweeney, Walter

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Sykes, John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Merchant, Piers

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Milligan, Stephen

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mills, Iain

Thomason, Roy

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Moate, Sir Roger

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Monro, Sir Hector

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thurnham, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Needham, Richard

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

Nelson, Anthony

Tracey, Richard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tredinnick, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trend, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Trotter, Neville

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Norris, Steve

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Walden, George

Oppenheim, Phillip

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Ottaway, Richard

Waller, Gary

Page, Richard

Ward, John

Paice, James

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Patnick, Irvine

Waterson, Nigel

Patten, Rt Hon John

Watts, John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wells, Bowen

Pawsey, James

Whitney, Ray

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Whittingdale, John

Pickles, Eric

Widdecombe, Ann

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wilkinson, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wiletts, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Wilshire, David

Rathbone, Tim

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wolfson, Mark

Riddick, Graham

Wood, Timothy

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Yeo, Tim

Robathan, Andrew

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Allen, Graham

Ainger, Nick

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

942

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Flynn, Paul

Armstrong, Hilary

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Ashton, Joe

Foulkes, George

Austin-Walker, John

Fraser, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fyfe, Maria

Barnes, Harry

Galloway, George

Barron, Kevin

Gapes, Mike

Battle, John

Garrett, John

Bayley, Hugh

George, Bruce

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Gerrard, Neil

Beggs, Roy

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bell, Stuart

Godsiff, Roger

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bennett, Andrew F.

Gould, Bryan

Benton, Joe

Graham, Thomas

Bermingham, Gerald

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Griffiths, Nigal (Edinburgh S)

Betts, Clive

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blair, Tony

Grocott, Bruce

Blunkett, David

Gunnell, John

Boateng, Paul

Hain, Peter

Boyes, Roland

Hall, Mike

Bradley, Keith

Hanson, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hardy, Peter

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Harman, Ms Harriet

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

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Burden, Richard

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Byers, Stephen

Hinchliffe, David

Caborn, Richard

Hoey, Kate

Callaghan, Jim

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Home Robertson, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Canavan, Dennis

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cann, Jamie

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hoyle, Doug

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clelland, David

Hutton, John

Coffey, Ann

Illsley, Eric

Cohen, Harry

Ingram, Adam

Connarty, Michael

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jamieson, David

Corbett, Robin

Janner, Greville

Corbyn, Jeremy

Johnston, Sir Russell

Corston, Ms Jean

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cummings, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jowell, Tessa

Dafis, Cynog

Keen, Alan

Davidson, Ian

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Khabra, Piara S.

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kilfoyle, Peter

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

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Denham, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Dewar, Donald

Leighton, Ron

Dixon, Don

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Dobson, Frank

Lewis, Terry

Donohoe, Brian H.

Litherland, Robert

Dowd, Jim

Livingstone, Ken

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Loyden, Eddie

Eagle, Ms Angela

Lynne, Ms Liz

Eastham, Ken

McAllion, John

Enright, Derek

McAvoy, Thomas

Etherington, Bill

McCartney, Ian

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Macdonald, Calum

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

McFall, John

Fatchett, Derek

McGrady, Eddie

Faulds, Andrew

McKelvey, William

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Fisher, Mark

McLeish, Henry

943

McMaster, Gordon

Pickthall, Colin

McWilliam, John

Pike, Peter L.

Madden, Max

Pope, Greg

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Mahon, Alice

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Mandelson, Peter

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Primarolo, Dawn

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Purchase, Ken

Martlew, Eric

Quin, Ms Joyce

Maxton, John

Radice, Giles

Meacher, Michael

Randall, Stuart

Meale, Alan

Raynsford, Nick

Michael, Alun

Redmond, Martin

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Reid, Dr John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Rendel, David

Milburn, Alan

Richardson, Jo

Miller, Andrew

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Morgan, Rhodri

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Morley, Elliot

Rogers, Allan

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Rooker, Jeff

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Rooney, Terry

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Rowlands, Ted

Mudie, George

Ruddock, Joan

Mullin, Chris

Salmond, Alex

Murphy, Paul

Sedgemore, Brian

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

O'Hara, Edward

Short, Clare

Olner, William

Simpson, Alan

O'Neill, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Parry, Robert

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

Patchett, Terry

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

Pendry, Tom

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

944

Snape, Peter

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Soley, Clive

Wareing, Robert N

Spearing, Nigel

Watson, Mike

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Welsh, Andrew

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Wicks, Malcolm

Steinberg, Gerry

Wigley, Dafydd

Stevenson, George

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Stott, Roger

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wilson, Brian

Straw, Jack

Winnick, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wise, Audrey

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Worthington, Tony

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wray, Jimmy

Tipping, Paddy

Wright, Dr Tony

Tyler, Paul

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Vaz, Keith

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Tellers for the Noes:

Wallace, James

Mr. John Spellar and

Walley, Joan

Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9662/93, relating to guide prices for fishery products 1994, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th December 1993 relating to total allowable catches and quotas for 1994, the Sixth Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1992–93 on the effects of conservation measures on the United Kingdom sea fishing industry (House of Commons Paper No. 620) and the Government's Response thereto contained in the Fifth Special Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1992–93 (House of Commons Paper No. 927); and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1994 consistent with the requirements of conservation of fish stocks.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Statutory Instruments, &c.

  COURT OF SESSION
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 28th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 4.

  Division No. 34]

  [10.47 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Couchman, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baldry, Tony

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bates, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evennett, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boswell, Tim

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowden, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowis, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bright, Graham

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fry, Peter

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gallie, Phil

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burns, Simon

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Burt, Alistair

  Garnier, Edward

  Butcher, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Butler, Peter

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorst, John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clappison, James

  Hague, William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Colvin, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Congdon, David

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cormack, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  946

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Norris, Steve

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Horam, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Rendel, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

  Shersby, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Sims, Roger

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Stephen, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Maclean, David

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  Madel, David

  Sykes, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marlow, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Milligan, Stephen

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

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Needham, Richard

  Walden, George

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wallace, James

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waller, Gary

  947

  Ward, John

  Wilshire, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Wells, Bowen

  Wolfson, Mark

  Whitney, Ray

  Wood, Timothy

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, Bob

  Tellers For the Noes:

  Loyden, Eddie

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

  Wise, Audrey

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  WATER AND SEWERAGE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 2nd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 129.

  Division No. 35]

  [10.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Churchill, Mr

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clappison, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Ancram, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bates, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Day, Stephen

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bellingham, Henry

  Devlin, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dover, Den

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Booth, Hartley

  Dunn, Bob

  Boswell, Tim

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eggar, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evennett, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burt, Alistair

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butler, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Cash, William

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  French, Douglas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fry, Peter

  948

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gorst, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Needham, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hayes, Jerry

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heald, Oliver

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Paice, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rendel, David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  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

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sims, Roger

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

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knox, Sir David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Legg, Barry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Allan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Madel, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sykes, John

  949

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Ward, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Thomason, Roy

  Whitney, Ray

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Willetts, David

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

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trend, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. James Arbuthnot and

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Hoyle, Doug

  Ashton, Joe

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Hutton, John

  Battle, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ingram, Adam

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Beggs, Roy

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Benton, Joe

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lewis, Terry

  Betts, Clive

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Boyes, Roland

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bradley, Keith

  McAllion, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Burden, Richard

  Macdonald, Calum

  Caborn, Richard

  McFall, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  McKelvey, William

  Canavan, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  McMaster, Gordon

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  McWilliam, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Madden, Max

  Cohen, Harry

  Mahon, Alice

  Connarty, Michael

  Mandelson, Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Denham, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Dewar, Donald

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Dixon, Don

  Morley, Elliot

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Dowd, Jim

  Mudie, George

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  O'Hara, Edward

  Eastham, Ken

  Olner, William

  Etherington, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Pickthall, Colin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pike, Peter L.

  Galloway, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Garrett, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Godsiff, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Reid, Dr John

  Graham, Thomas

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Robertson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Gunnell, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hanson, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Hardy, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brain

  Hoey, Kate

  Short, Clare

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Hood, Jimmy

  Spearing, Nigel

  950

  Spellar, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walley, Joan

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

  Wareing, Robert N

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you put the Questions on the next two motions I thought that it might be prudent to check what happened in the Committees that considered the motions. I went to the Vote Office and was told that the reports on the Committees in which the orders were considered are not yet available and cannot be made available to hon. Members. Therefore, I believe that it would be wrong to put the Questions when the House cannot know anything other than that the Committee considered the instruments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is in order for the motions to be moved. The matter he raised is a matter for the Government.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCOUNTS
  That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Insurance Companies Accounts) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 23 November, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 127.

  Division No. 36]

  [11.11 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Alexander, Richard

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Burns, Simon

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butler, Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baldry, Tony

  Churchill, Mr

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clappison, James

  Bates, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Beggs, Roy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Colvin, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Congdon, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Day, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bright, Graham

  Devlin, Tim

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Dover, Den

  951

  Duncan, Alan

  Legg, Barry

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Leigh, Edward

  Dunn, Bob

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lidington, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Maclean, David

  Faber, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Madel, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Malone, Gerald

  Forman, Nigel

  Mans, Keith

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marland, Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marlow, Tony

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  French, Douglas

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fry, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gallie, Phil

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Merchant, Piers

  Gamier, Edward

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gill, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Gillen, Cheryl

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gorst, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Needham, Richard

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Paice, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pawsey, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Horam, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

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

  Richards, Rod

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Riddick, Graham

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jack, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knox, Sir David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  952

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Trotter, Neville

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spring, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sproat, Iain

  Walden, George

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stem, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stewart, Allan

  Wells, Bowen

  Streeter, Gary

  Whitney, Ray

  Sumberg, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sykes, John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thomason, Roy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Trend, Michael

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Hanson, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Hoey, Kate

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Ashton, Joe

  Home Robertson, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Battle, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Bayley, Hugh

  Hoyle, Doug

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Beith, Rt Hon A.J.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Benton, Joe

  Hutton, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Illsley, Eric

  Betts, Clive

  Ingram, Adam

  Boyes, Roland

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Bradley, Keith

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Burden, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cann, Jamie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Lewis, Terry

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Coffey, Ann

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Cohen, Harry

  McAllion, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Davidson, Ian

  McFall, John

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

  McKelvey, William

  Denham, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dewar, Donald

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dixon, Don

  McWilliam, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Madden, Max

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mahon, Alice

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mandelson, Peter

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martlew, Eric

  Enright, Derek

  Maxton, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Milburn, Alan

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Fraser, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mudie, George

  Galloway, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Garrett, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Gerrard, Neil

  O'Hara, Edward

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Olney, William

  Godsiff, Roger

  Patchett, Terry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Graham, Thomas

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Gunnell, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  953

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rendel, David

  Wallace, James

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Eddie Loyden and

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Beith: Further to my previous point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In similar circumstances, the occupant of the Chair has given the Government the opportunity not to move an order when the necessary papers are not available. The House is not in possession of the Committee report relating to the next motion on the Order Paper, which is the only way in which right hon. and hon. Members can know whether a vote took place or whether substantial objections to the order were raised in Committee.
  Madam Speaker is responsible for the printing and accuracy of the reports of proceedings of the House. Therefore, it also falls upon the Chair to be concerned if those proceedings are not available to the House when they are required. It seems to me, and should appear to Ministers who are present, that it is an abuse of the procedures of the House to attempt to make the House vote on a motion for which the necessary papers are not available. I believe that that view is shared by some Conservative Members.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would not it be better to adopt the practice of voting in our seats as all the votes are spurious?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Standing Orders are clear on standing and sitting, and the present circumstances are not appropriate. It is for the Government to decide whether they wish to move a motion. The Chair's responsibility is to call the motion.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  INSURANCE ACCOUNTS DIRECTIVE
  That the draft Insurance Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Insurance Undertakings) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 119.

  Division No. 37]

  [11.25 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baldry, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bates, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amess, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ashby, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Booth, Hartley

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Boswell, Tim

  954

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Bowis, John

  Harris, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Bright, Graham

  Heald, Oliver

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hendry, Charles

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hicks, Robert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Burns, Simon

  Hogg, Rt hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Horam, John

  Butler, Peter

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Butterfill, John

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

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cash, William

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jack, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coe, Sebastian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Congdon, David

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Key Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Couchman, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cran, James

  Knapman, Roger

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

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Knox, Sir David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Devlin, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Dover, Den

  Legg, Barry

  Duncan, Alan

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Dunn, Bob

  Lidington, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lord, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Maclean, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evennett, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Faber, David

  Madel, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Malone, Gerald

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mans, Keith

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Marland, Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Marlow, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  French, Douglas

  Mates, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gallie, Phil

  Merchant, Piers

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Milligan, Stephen

  Garnier, Edward

  Mills, Iain

  Gill, Christopher

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gorst, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hague, William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Ottaway, Richard

  955

  Page, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Paice, James

  Sweeney, Walter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Sykes, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Richards, Rod

  Thompson, sir Donald (C'er V)

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trend, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shersby, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wilkinson, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spring, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sproat, Iain

  Wood, Timothy

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Stephen, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

  Stewart, Allan

  Mr Derek Conway.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Enright, Derek

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Etherington, Bill

  Ashton, Joe

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Battle, John

  Galloway, George

  Bayley, Hugh

  Garrett, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gerrard, Neil

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Benton, Joe

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Betts, Clive

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boyes, Roland

  Gunnell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hanson, David

  Burden, Richard

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnston, Sir Russell

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

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Dixon, Don

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  956

  Loyden, Eddie

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  McAllion, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Radice, Giles

  Macdonald, Calum

  Reid, Dr John

  McFall, John

  Rendel, David

  McKelvey, William

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  McWilliam, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Madden, Max

  Rooney, Terry

  Mahon, Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Spellar, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Maxton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Milburn, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morley, Elliot

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mudie, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mullin, Chris

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wray, Jimmy

  Olner, William

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Patchett, Terry

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approyed.—[Mr. Wood.]
  The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 109.

  Division No. 38]

  [11.36 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butterfill, John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amess, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ashby, David

  Clappison, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Baldry, Tony

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Congdon, David

  Bates, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Beggs, Roy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Couchman, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

  Booth, Hartley

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Day, Stephen

  Bowden, Andrew

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bowis, John

  Devlin, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dover, Den

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Dunn, Bob

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  Burns, Simon

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  957

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Madel, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Malone, Gerald

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Mans, Keith

  Evennett, David

  Marland, Paul

  Faber, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Merchant, Piers

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Mills, Iain

  French, Douglas

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gallie, Phil

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Garnier, Edward

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gill, Christopher

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gillen, Cheryl

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Norris, Steve

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hague, William

  Page, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Pickles, Eric

  Hannam, Sir John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Harris, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Richards, Rod

  Hayes, Jerry

  Riddick, Graham

  Heald, Oliver

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hendry, Charles

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hicks, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Horam, John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Sackville, Tom

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jack, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shersby, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Sims, Roger

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Soames, Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Knapman, Roger

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spring, Richard

  Knox, Sir David

  Sproat, Iain

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Steen, Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Stephen, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Stern, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Stewart, Allan

  Lidington, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Lightbown, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lord, Michael

  Sykes, John

  Luff, Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  958

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

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

  Wilkinson, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trotter, Neville

  Wolfson, Mark

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wood, Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ashton, Joe

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Barnes, Harry

  Lewis, Terry

  Battle, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bayley, Hugh

  Loyden, Eddie

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  McAllion, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Benton, Joe

  Macdonald, Calum

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McKelvey, William

  Betts, Clive

  McMaster, Gordon

  Boyes, Roland

  McWilliam, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Mahon, Alice

  Burden, Richard

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Maxton, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Meale, Alan

  Clelland, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Coffey, Ann

  Milburn, Alan

  Cohen, Harry

  Miller, Andrew

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Morley, Elliot

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Mudie, George

  Davidson, Ian

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

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

  Olner, William

  Denham, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Dewar, Donald

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dixon, Don

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dowd, Jim

  Radice, Giles

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Rendel, David

  Enright, Derek

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Etherington, Bill

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Rooker, Jeff

  Galloway, George

  Rooney, Terry

  Garrett, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Gerrard, Neil

  Short, Clare

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Spellar, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Gunnell, John

  Strang, Dr. Gerry

  Hanson, David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hoey, Kate

  Turner, Dennis

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Wallace, James

  Hood, Jimmy

  Wareing, Robert N

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hoyle, Doug

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Wise, Audrey

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Hutton, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 108.

  Division No. 39]

  [11.47 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amess, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bates, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forman, Nigel

  Beggs, Roy

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bendell, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorst, John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Grant, sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butler, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hicks, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Rt hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  960

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir keith

  Lightbown, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, David

  Sproat Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

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

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trotter, Neville

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waterson, Nigel

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Richards, Rod

  Willetts, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Michael Brown.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Boyes, Roland

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Keith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Battle, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Clelland, David

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  961

  Cryer, Bob

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McWilliam, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Mahon, Alice

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Dewar, Donald

  Maxton, John

  Dixon, Don

  Meale, Alan

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Michael, Alun

  Dowd, Jim

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Milburn, Alan

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Miller, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  Morley, Elliot

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Olner, William

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Pickthall, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Pike, Peter L.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Graham, Thomas

  Radice, Giles

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Reid, Dr John

  Gunnell, John

  Rendel, David

  Hanson, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hoey, Kate

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Short, Clare

  Hoyle, Doug

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hutton, John

  Spearing, Nigle

  Illsley, Eric

  Spellar, John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann {Dewsbury}

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Turner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wareing, Robert N

  Lewis, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Liwyd, Elfyn

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wise, Audrey

  McAllion, John

  Worthington, Tony

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wray, Jimmy

  Macdonald, Calum

  McGrady, Eddie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McKelvey, William

  Mr. George Mudie and

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 {Consolidated Fund Bills}:
  The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 91.

  Division No.40]

  [11.58 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Alexander, Richard

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dunn, Bob

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Amess, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arbuthnot, James

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, David {Welwyn Hatfield}

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, Jonathan {Brecon}

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Nigel {Ribble Valley}

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, Roger{Monmouth}

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Faber, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bates, Michael

  Field, Barry {Isle of Wight}

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Forman, Nigel

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forsyth, Michael {Stirling}

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Dr Liam {Woodspring}

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  Booth, Hartley

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorst, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir A. {Cambs SW}

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, Harry {Ealing N}

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John {Ryedale}

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Griffiths, Peter {Portsmouth, N}

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie {Epsom}

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil {Tatton}

  Butler, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hill, James {Southampton Test}

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas{G'tham}

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howarth, Alan {Strat'rd-on-A}

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David {G'dford}

  Cran, James

  Hughes Robert G.{Harrow W}

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

  Hunt, Sir John {Ravensbourne}

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym {Cardiff N

  963

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David {Dover}

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Sir Giles {Pudsey}

  Key, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin {Hereford}

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shepherd, Richard {Aldridge}

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sims, Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Smith, Sir Dudley {Warwick}

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Tim {Beaconsfield}

  Knox, Sir David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir James {W Dorset}

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Michael {S Worcs}

  Leigh, Edward

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lightbown, David

  Squire, Robin {Hornchurch}

  Lord, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stephen, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sweeney, Walter

  Malone, Gerald

  Sykes, John

  Mans, Keith

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Ian {Esher}

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, John M. {Solihull}

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thomason, Roy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald {C'er V}

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Patrick {Norwich N}

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Townend, John {Bridlington}

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townsend, Cyril D. {Bexl'yh'th}

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Nelson, Anthony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Bill {N Tayside}

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wallace, James

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles {Bexhill}

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Page, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Paice, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Willetts, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann {Congleton}

  Rendel, David

  Winterton, Nicholas {Macc'f'ld}

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Richards, Rod

  Wood, Timothy

  Riddick, Graham

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert {Cov'try NE}

  Betts, Clive

  Banks, Tony {Newham NW}

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Boyes, Roland

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Beckett, Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Eric {Midlothian}

  964

  Clelland, David

  McMaster, Gordon

  Coffey, Ann

  McWilliam, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Mahon, Alice

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, Jim {Leicester, S}

  Davidson, Ian

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Dowd, Jim

  Michie, Bill {Sheffield Heeley}

  Enright, Derek

  Milburn, Alan

  Etherington, Bill

  Miller, Andrew

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Flynn, Paul

  O'Brien, Michael {N W'kshire}

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Pickthall, Colin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Powell, Ray {Ogmore}

  Graham, Thomas

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Radice, Giles

  Gunnell, John

  Reid, Dr John

  Hall, Mike

  Robinson, Peter {Belfast E}

  Hanson, David

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hoey, Kate

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Rooney, Terry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Spellar, John

  Hutton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Illsley, Eric

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Ingram, Adam

  Turner, Dennis

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Welsh, Andrew

  Lewis, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Worthington, Tony

  Loyden, Eddie

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Macdonald, Calum

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  McGrady, Eddie

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 97.

  Division No. 42

  [6.07 am

  AYES

  Nil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Michael Fabricant and

  Mr John Marshall.

  NOES

  Arbuthnot, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Mr. David Shaw and

  Mr. Bill Walker.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

  Marchioness Disaster
  12.23 am
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have no pleasure in raising the subject of the Marchioness disaster. We should not be here; it should not have happened; and it should have been cleared up by a public inquiry.
  In my Adjournment debate on 10 July last year, we were given an answer by one of the Ministers who are now present. I suspect that either he or a colleague will reply to the debate. I understand why two are present; I think that other debates may follow. I asked at least 10 questions which were not answered in that debate.
  One of the singular issues was that had the Marchioness disaster happened in June or July with the House in session, there would have been a statement within a day or two. There would have been an enormous furore, and I think that there would have been a public inquiry. Anything less would not have been, and I do not believe has ever been, acceptable.
  Fifty people died unexpectedly and tragically in the centre of London. It is the only disaster we have had on the Thames in over a century, since the Princess Alice went down off Beckton. That illustrates the relative safety of the Thames and makes it all the more important that something should have been done.
  Three former or existing residents of my constituency, including Stephen Perks, lost their life. One of the former residents was the skipper of the Marchioness, Mr. Faldo. However, my constituency interest is not the prime motivation or interest that I have in the issue. My interest started because this is the 50th year in which I have been fairly regularly navigating the tidal Thames. It is roughly 45 years ago, about the summer of 1945, that I came down the river in a dinghy and moored somewhere near Westminster pier on a buoy when some men in a steamboat said, "Come along, sonny. Get your tea out and moor alongside us." That was the Marchioness.
  I have no commercial interest in the river, but I am a vice-president of the River Thames Society and a member of the Inland Waterways Association, Transport on Water, the Thames Traditional Boat Society and the Thames Wherry Trust. That is not the Wherry of the Norfolk sort, but the traditional type which for 200 or 300 years were on the river in their thousands.
  I make mistakes on the river, as we all do on the road. One looks back afterwards, grateful that others were not making a mistake at the same time. So I have considerable sympathy for both men—one drowned and one alive—who were involved in the incident as skippers. Old Father Thames may seem nice in many ways, and he is; but he is a nasty old man between Blackfriars and the Tower.
  Usually I tend to be rather detailed and legalistic. I hope that the House will forgive me if I become more colloquial in recounting the complex and horrific story of the events that took place after the disaster. I do not want to give way, except to Front-Bench spokesmen if they really wish to intervene.
  This has been a story of inaction. After King's Cross and the incident at Clapham, there were, quite rightly, big inquiries. An inquiry asks questions and reveals and the Government and all of us should assist that process. Unfortunately, in this instance, as I will demonstrate, the reverse has been the case. Survivors and relatives have been thwarted not only in their attempts to get a decent

  969
  public inquiry, but even in the matters that they have raised. I do not believe that they have been dealt with in the way that the House would wish.
  After the refusal by the then Secretary of State for Transport to grant a public inquiry—the recess helped that—a former Director of Public Prosecutions brought a case. People thought that there would be action at last. It was a case about not keeping a proper lookout. In the courts, that meant that matters of liability, blame and factors other than failing to keep a lookout were not germane to the proceedings. I understand that the maximum fine for that offence was £2,000 or two years imprisonment. It meant that all other comments were sub judice. That went on for a long time. Unfortunately, the jury did not agree on the first case, and it had to be retried.
  The Marchioness action group, which I met, ironically, at a conference on river safety some two years after the event, opposed that prosecution. Why was it brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and why did not the Attorney General use his powers, under what lawyers call "nolle prosequi", to stop that prosecution taking place? Surely it was not in the public's interest.
  Time went on and the matter died down to an extent. It progressed only at an inquest by the Westminster coroner. I expressed concern about that at the previous debate on the matter, but I have had no satisfaction. Some of the hands of those who were drowned were removed by order of the coroner, who prevented, by some form of order, some of the next of kin from even identifying their loved ones and family.
  When the case on keeping a look-out arose, the matter went sub judice and, when it was concluded some time later, despite requests from more than 30 families, the inquest was adjourned and has not been resumed.
  So cutting off the inquiry was the second block. I understand why that may have been justified. In answer to a written question, the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office told me:
  "Under section 16(3) of the Act, the coroner may resume the adjourned inquest after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings if, in his opinion, there is sufficient cause to do so." —[Official Report, 13 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 439.]
  That is usually when some other circumstances are connected with the death, but the coroner has an option to reconvene the case. In this case, he used the right not to do so, despite the clear need to take the matter further through the inquest.
  Next, a private prosecution was brought by a relative of one of the deceased. Mr. Glogg's wife was drowned, and he brought a private prosecution against the owners of the Bowbelle, Ready Mixed Concrete, which is a large firm with strong links with this House, with both personnel and well-known financial connections.
  The corporate case against RMC was against individual members of its management, but things went wrong. It would take too long for me to go into the complication, but the difficulty arose because the DPP intervened again. He has the power to take over a private prosecution if he thinks that it is wise to do so but, having taken it over, he can drop it.
  There was an argument between him and the Marchioness action group about what was to happen. I understand that he said that he wanted to see all the group's evidence before taking a view on the matter. Members of the group thought it so outrageous that the DPP wanted to see the evidence before it was tried in court that they made
  970
  the matter public and he then dropped it. I may not have got that absolutely right, but my description shows the difficulties that those people faced at least a year after the disaster.
  The prosecution went ahead, but further difficulties arose when the firm involved understanably applied for a judicial review and tried to stop the case going ahead. Although it went ahead, the magistrate—it was held in the Bow street court—said that, if it was a matter of corporate liability, the condition of the craft and how it was managed would not necessarily count. He questioned whether it could be proved that the Marchioness had turned to port, as the inquiry had showed.
  In the same way, one might have an accident with a motor car that comes across one's front. He said that it was impossible to tell whether that had happened. If it had, it would have made no difference how well the ship was managed or how responsible the company was. That is my understanding of that matter.
  That took us, after two years, to the report of the marine accident investigation branch. Although that report was completed and some of the material that it contained, including the recommendations, were published, the report itself—quite properly—was not due to be published.
  If the Marchioness action group—I am taking this a little out of sequence—wanted to pursue the corporate matter, as it did, it had a problem with the report, because it was about to be published. The action group went to the Attorney-General and said, "If the report is published at this time, the case that we are about to pursue based on the course of the Marchioness will be prejudiced. Please ask the Government to hold back the MAIB report, so that —as in all the other cases—the matter will be deemed sub judice, but this time on our terms, until that court case is finished." The Government did not agree.
  The preface to the MAIB report is signed by Captain Marriott, who states:
  "I submit my Report following the Inspector's inquiry into the collision between the passenger launch Marchioness and the aggregate dredger Bowebelle".
  Although Captain Marriott was the senior man in the MAIB, it was not his inquiry. He refers to "the Inspector's inquiry". Who conducted the inquiry? That is not stated in the report. The inquiry was conducted by someone who may be known but who was not named, and was sent by his superior officer to the Secretary of State for Transport. We do not know who formally conducted the inquiry, although we might have some guesses about it.
  How did that arise? Unlike a proper inquiry, if I may put it that way, a maritime inquiry of that nature comes under the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 and Statutory Instrument 1172, the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989, which were published only a month or two before the Marchioness disaster, and which are highly relevant. Regulation 8(2), regarding the conduct of investigations, states:
  "An investigation may extend to cover all events and circumstances preceding the accident which in the opinion of the inspector may have been relevant to its cause or outcome, and also to cover the consequences of the accident and the inspector's powers shall apply accordingly."
  Regulation 8(4) states:
  "Upon completion of an investigation the inspector shall submit to the Chief Inspector his findings as to the facts of the accident and, where the facts cannot be certainly established, his opinion as to the most probable facts. He shall clearly distinguish

  971
  between established facts and conjecture. He shall also submit his analysis and his conclusions together with such observations and recommendations as he thinks fit to make."
  The personality of the inspector who submitted his report to the Chief Inspector, Captain Marriott, is therefore most important. We are getting further and further away from what one would expect from a public inquiry in the form that one would expect, at which members of the public can volunteer information, and so on.
  The MAIB report was well publicised at the time of its publication. Full summaries were sent to the press in August 1991, and it is true that it said some hard things about the way that Department of Transport officials and possibly Ministers handled safety on the Thames for a number of years. I will not quote those comments because they appear in the summaries and even more so in the Hayes report, to which I shall refer later.
  It is interesting and important to note that not all the people who wanted to provide evidence did so. As I understand it, that happened without much knowledge of the victims who were on the boat or their families.
  I am told that many of those who survived the traumatic incident gave statements to the police, and that was all they heard about it. One person of whom I know had to make great efforts to give evidence to the MAIB inquiry. Other people did not know that they had the opportunity to do so. Advertisements were placed in newspapers. Does that mean that the survivors' addresses were unknown? It was an extraordinary way to go about things.
  I did not know the position at the time. I knew that the Bowbelle had been involved in several accidents before that disaster—neither the Bowbelle nor its sister ship was unknown on the river. As soon as the report was published, I looked to see what it could tell me about the accidents that I had seen in Lloyd's List. Out of seven or eight accidents of which I knew, only one was included in the report. I immediately wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport, who was then the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). In my letter I stated that the Bowbelle had been involved in six accidents that were not mentioned in the report, and that there must be something wrong.
  I found that many factors were wrong. I read the report and found that it raised as many questions as it answered. I wanted to know so many facts that were not included in the report. There were so many omissions and massive gaps that I could not regard it as a thorough or complete report. It was necessary to know the river to be able to identify them. I concentrated on the six accidents that were not reported. I corresponded with the hon. Member for Derbshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who was then a junior Transport Minister and we had a sort of tennis match in Hansard on complex issues.
  On 12 December 1991, the Minister eventually told me that he had received no representations about omissions of relevant facts from the investigation. I said that I had sent him a letter asked questions only to be told that they were not relevant. The Minister's reply continued:
  "The letter of 19 August from the hon. Member was received on 20 August: I replied on 19 September. That letter from the hon. Member was not considered to be a representation about relevant facts in the context of the Marchioness report. The marine accident investigation branch inspectors were aware of the number of incidents involving vessels, including Bowbelle, which had occurred prior to the tragic accident that they were
  972
  investigating. Section 15 of the report discussed the reaction of the owners, PLA and the Department at some length. To have gone into detail on each incident would have greatly lengthened that section without adding to its value; the reason for singling out the incidents described in annex 11 of the report is that they had particular similarities to the Marchioness case."—[Official Report, 12 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 511.]
  One of the cases happened in Sydney harbour in 1927. The six that I had singled out were not mentioned. The answer also mentioned "detail on each incident"—I was not asking for detail; I just wanted the matter listed.
  Eventually, on 21 January 1992, the subject was placed on the record when I asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he would draw the accidents to the attention of the Hayes inquiry established by him. The gaps in the report included the fact that it contained no account of the career or experience of both masters. There was no real investigation of the intensity of illumination—at least of the Bowbelle's lights. The inspector said that, if Captain Faldo had turned and the boat was in the line of vision, it was possible that he did not see it.
  The report contained no description of the tidal sets—streams that run sideways across the river—which are important; or the depth of the water at that time. Speed tests were not carried out on the Bowbelle. There was no transcript of the Thames navigation service radio, which transmitted messages from various boats at that time. The transcript that is now in the Library has the phrase "unknown vessel" against one of the key transmissions.
  Later—I emphasise that—the report states that both boats went through the centre arches of Southwark bridge. That is what the report says, and everybody agrees with it. There was no discussion about convergence speeds or line of sight at that point.
  Most important of all, because rumour was rampant on the river at that time, there was no reference to when police took statements from those who were mainly concerned. I do not repeat rumour, but I can ask questions. There was a rumour, not mentioned in the report or denied, that a representative of Ready Mixed Concrete was aboard Bowbelle before the police. That may not be true; I do not know. All I am saying is that that was believed by some people. I ask the question: was that true or not true? Why was not it dealt with in the report as a matter of routine description?
  We move to the next phase, when the Marchioness action group met the Secretary of State and asked for an inquiry. He had to do something about that, did he not? He then produced the Hayes report into river safety. That was trumpeted around, and resulted in headlines in the press. I shall quote the Department of Transport press release dated 19 December 1991. It was headed:
  "Marchioness: river safety inquiry announced",
  and said:
  "An independent investigation is to take place of the Department of Transport's past and present handling of river safety, Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of State for Transport announced today."
  I do not know who wrote the headline. We have problems of our own in the subbing of headlines.
  In fact, the Hayes inquiry was not into the Marchioness disaster. Its terms of reference stated:
  "In the light of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster to examine the handling since 1980 by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers and inland waters and to report on the effectiveness of the present approach. The enquiry should take account of developments in the field of marine safety at the international level."

  973
  In correspondence, Mr. Hayes made it quite clear that, while he could consider that disaster and take some lessons from it, he was not entitled either to investigate the disaster itself or still less to make an evaluation of the MAIB report. Those terms of reference were set out in Cm 1991, which is the Hayes report published by the Government.
  A remarkable statement was made in paragraph 1.7 of the report, when Mr. Hayes said:
  "When the disaster occurred I understand that the decision not to order a public inquiry was taken at No. 10 Downing Street on advice from the Department."
  I do not suppose that the Minister can tell us why that was the advice. I should very much like to know. The only reason that I have heard was that, as in the case of an air disaster, the technical people could deal with it rather better than a public inquiry.
  One of the principal recommendations of the Hayes report was:
  "There should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames which should take account of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster."
  As the Hayes committee would not have been set up but for that disaster, we automatically expected that that would be accepted by the Department, because it was surely one of the principal recommendations.
  I have lost count of the blockages that occurred in this sad story, but I shall cite another involving the present Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor). In his reply to the Hayes report, he said:
  "The Government have given careful consideration to the recommendation but have concluded that a further review of this kind would not be justified. Action is, however, being taken to ensure that the lessons…have been fully assimilated."—[Official Report, 7 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 101.]
  One of the prime reasons for setting up the Hayes committee, even if, contrary to public expectation, it did not consider the Marchioness disaster, as that misleading headline suggested it might, was not accepted. But it gets worse, if one can imagine that.
  On 19 July, a year later, the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) asked the Secretary of State for Transport:
  "which recommendations in the marine accident investigation branch report into the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle have now been implemented and what action has been taken on the recommendations in the report of the inquiry into river safety, the Hayes report."
  I am sorry to say that the Minister for Transport in London, who is present in the Chamber, answered thus:
  "The MAIB report into the loss of the Marchioness contained 27 recommendations. All have now been implemented. The Hayes report contained 22 recommendations, and action is in hand on all."—[Official Report, 19 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 78.]
  That is the nearest thing that I have seen to a falsehood in Hansard in my career. I hoped that I have phrased that correctly.
  That leads, I think, to block six. I have lost count. We have stopped at almost every point. Requests for further action and a public inquiry were rejected. It was said, "Ah, we have had two court cases and two reports and all the facts are known. What more is needed? You are up a gum tree."
  That was more or less the position until the debate that I initiated a year ago, when the 10 questions that I posed were not answered and which, unfortunately, did not receive much media attention—at least, until last Wednesday when the "Despatches" programme on
  974
  Channel 4 went into the subject in a big way. I shall not deal with that in detail, because videos are as readily available as newspapers these days.
  The programme did not spend much time on the disaster, except at the end, when it was very important, but it gave the background to the ships—alas, apparently badly managed—of Ready Mixed Concrete, a large organisation the characteristics of which I mentioned en passant a short while ago.
  Several crew members of the vessels gave various accounts of what had happened. It may be that some will be questioned by the company; no doubt they will. The programme dealt with many things, some of which hon. Members may wish to refer to, which cast light on the management of all the vessels in the concern involved. It also made it clear that the evidence and experiences of various witnesses and survivors of the incident had not been taken into account in the MAIB report.
  The programme went on to show, as the MAIB report says, that the facts suggested that, under all the circumstances, it was probable that the Marchioness sank somewhere between Southwark bridge and Canon street railway bridge, perhaps nearer to the latter, and was probably turning to port when it was run down. That is broadly what the MAIB reports says. Most of the evidence—not all of it—in the courts and taken by the MAIB suggested that that was so.
  The programme suggested that at least there was some evidence the other way. But that evidence was not in the MAIB report, probably because, as I have said, it was not easy to give evidence to the inquiry. How could people know about it when details were not widely circulated, at least according to my information?
  Yet time after time, Minister after Minister talked airily, as all Ministers do, about there having been a full and thorough inquiry, with all the facts having been made known. That was not so. They were brought out in the programme on Wednesday.
  Therefore, I asked a question which was answered the day after the programme. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport
  "if he will now reconsider the decisions made not to establish a public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster of comparable scope to those already conducted into the disasters at King's Cross and Clapham."
  The reply was:
  "When the then Secretary of State considered the need for a public inquiry he concluded that the holding of a formal investigation was unnecessary given that a full, thorough and comprehensive inquiry had been carried out by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch—MAIB. Subsequently, the view has remained that a formal investigation would be unlikely to add to the inspector's findings,"—
  I suggest that it would be likely to do so—
  "or to the 27 safety recommendations made in the MAIB report. The position was not changed by anything said in the Hayes report, which made no suggestion that a further inquiry into the accident was needed."
  Of course, the report made a recommendation which was not taken up that an inquiry should be held into safety in general. The answer continues:
  "I therefore remain of the view that the case for a formal inquiry has not been made."—[Official Report, 9 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 341.]
  That was the day after the broadcast.
  Some people were stirred by the broadcast, including some survivors. I have received two letters since the broadcast which I should like to quote. One was from a lady called Gillian Moseley, who wrote:

  975
  "I am a survivor of the disaster and was the first person to climb out of the Boat after the Bowbelle ran over us and once the Marchioness 'bobbed back up'. I was in shock at the time and my senses were heightened and I described to many people the open water I came up in. We were definitely on the west of Southwark bridge and I was horrified to learn from the programme that it was assumed otherwise, and that this assumption was the basis of false conclusions which closed the case."
  It is true that the river may have been running at 2 or 3 knots and people may have been swept up river, but what about the letter from Mr. Simon Hook? Mr. Hook was a survivor. He was in a WC cubicle at the time of the collision. He said:
  "there was a window on my left which was square with curved edges. The bottom part of the window was blacked out. The top part of the window slid open to let the air in and it was possible to see out. The Marchioness was on a straight course and had not changed course in any way when there was an initial lurch to the side as if something had hit us. At the time my hand was in the open window and I used this to steady myself. As the Marchioness lurched over on one side I saw through the open window, the underside of a bridge overhead the boat. I now believe this was Southwark Bridge. I could see the bridge because as we tipped up there was some light coming from the Marchioness and then immediately afterwards the lights went out.
  Before seeing the television programme I did not know that the official report and the prosecution had been based on the disaster occurring between Cannon Street and Southwark Bridge. I know from my own observation that this is not the case and that the Marchioness was under Southwark Bridge and can confirm what was said on the television programme by the eye witnesses on the Hurlingham."
  They were the people who did not speak—the Sherlock Holmes dogs who were not allowed to bark. The Hurlingham rescued many survivors from the terrible tragedy. The skipper and many passengers were aboard that boat, some of whom gave evidence on the television programme which was contrary to the conclusions of the official inquiry.
  The House cannot judge what evidence was right. We are not an inquiry which can do that. All I am saying is that there is evidence contrary to that included in the official inquiry, and that witnesses were not heard and apparently were not sought.
  I asked a question, answered today by the Minister for Transport in London—the same person who answered previous questions, I make it plain, for the Secretary of State and previous Secretaries of State. I asked the Secretary of State:
  "what relevant facts he now has in his possession, or have been drawn to his attention, which in his opinion are additional to those set out in the report of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch concerning the "Marchioness" disaster."
  The answer was:
  "None."
  The witnesses may have got it wrong under cross-questioning, but can it really be said that the facts drawn to the Minister's attention are irrelevant? I do not think so.
  So my submission is that the official report on which so much has been based, including the evidence about the turn to port between the bridges rather than possibly being struck under the middle of Southwark bridge, is that the report is inept, inadequate, incomplete, incompetent, inefficient, probably incorrect and was taken in private in Orpington—by a unnamed inspector. It might have been Mr. Marriott or Captain DeCoverley—I do not know.
  A decent inquiry would have been held not only in public but in Greenwich, Southwark or Westminster. There is an inquest court and a high court in Westminster, and
  976
  this is the high court—Parliament, where we must question not only Ministers' handling of this matter but the Department's handling of marine matters and the handling by the Government, successive Secretaries of State, Attorneys-General and the past DPP.
  I put that point to the Leader of the House on Thursday, who, again reading his brief, said:
  "I am advised that no new evidence has been produced to warrant a further inquiry and that the evidence cited in the television programme covered no ground that was not examined during the MAIB investigation."—[Official Report, 9 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 488.]
  Anyone who has seen that video and read the report could not go along with that. I do not think that the Lord President does so, but he said that the inquiry had covered the ground, and I hope that I have covered quite a lot of the water.
  The MAIB is not an awfully well regarded organisation. It has been heavily criticised in relation to other matters, and the recent record on maritime safety has not been good. The Derbyshire incident has not been dealt with and questions remain unanswered about the Pescado and the Ocean Hound.
  It is no good the Government saying, "Let us do it like aircraft inquiries," at which the interests of passengers and the financial interests of air companies are in harmony. At inquiries into incidents involving cargo vessels, the interests of the safety of the crew and the financial interests of owners are in conflict.
  I shall conclude by asking some questions. Why did the DPP initiate the case? Why did he then try to stop, in effect, a private prosecution? Why did not the coroner complete his investigation? Why were hands cut off? Why did the coroner deny identification? Why did not the Attorney-General apply nolle prosequi, and why did not he postpone the publication of the MAIB report so that the case could have got on? Why did not the Secretary of State have a Clapham or King's Cross style inquiry? Why did not he implement the recommendation of the Hayes report? Why are Ministers trying to say that they did, when they did not?
  Every hon. Member whose constituent was drowned or who represents a grieving family or friend has a right to know why the Government do not want a public inquiry—and London wants to know, too.
  1.2 am
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I begin by paying tribute to the relentless way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has pursued the scandalous sinking of the Marchioness and the more scandalous way in which British officialdom has attempted to deal with it.
  I should like to put a question to the Minister: have Ministers seen the "Despatches" film right through? I will give way if the Minister can tell us. Apparently he has not. I do not know whether silence betokens consent.
  There is a basic position: when a substantial number of our fellow citizens suffer sudden death, any Government, even a minimalist Government of the present persuasion, must recognise that they have a basic obligation to investigate those deaths as thoroughly as is humanly possible and to produce reports that are thorough and satisfactory and which satisfy all rational people, especially those who are involved either as survivors or as relatives of the people killed.

  977
  In the case of the Marchioness disaster, in which 51 people died, British officialdom has failed on all counts. What has happened has brought our judicial and administrative systems into disrepute.
  Let us begin by considering the investigation by the marine accident investigation branch. It was conducted behind closed doors and it has never been disclosed who gave evidence to it. We know, however, that some of the evidence that it considered was given to the police for other purposes. Questions relevant to the MAIB were not asked and the investigation received evidence that was irrelevant to its inquiries. No one has had the opportunity to challenge any of the evidence presented. It is clear even to a layman reading some of the technical evidence that the investigation was shoddily conducted. For example, the "spot the Bowbelle" tests bore no resemblance to the circumstances in which the sinking occurred.
  The report did not deal with all the issues and it mixed up evidence and conclusions. It was a second-rate investigation and a second-rate report. The Government must bear some responsibility for that because they constantly tell their officials and the public that they do not believe in strict regulation and that any regulation of business is a burden on business and should be avoided at all costs.
  The shoddy, second-rate report produced by the Department of Transport is wrong in even the simple matters. It states that it was not known what the skipper of the Marchioness was doing the afternoon before the accident. The Department had all the facilities of the state at its disposal, but it could not find out that he was visiting a friend's wife who had had a baby. Other people found that out, but British officialdom could not be bothered; apparently, it did not matter.
  The report makes it clear that, because the Department had decided in advance that the movements of the Marchioness were the basic cause of the incident, more time was spent examining the visibility from the wheelhouse of the Marchioness than the visibility from the wheelhouse of the Bowbelle. It is clear that, because the Bowbelle was not properly ballasted, the bows were high out of the water. The nearest water in front of the Bowbelle that the people in the wheelhouse could see was 1,000 ft away, far beyond where the boat it ran into was located. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said, the shoddy report managed to mention only one of the seven incidents on the river in which the Bowbelle had smashed into someone, something or some bridge.
  Let us now consider the inquest on which Ministers rely when they say that they do not want a public inquiry. The inquest opened in April 1990 and lasted four days. In respect of all but seven of the people who died, what might be called part I of an inquest was completed. It established the identity of the victims and the immediate cause of death—drowning. The relatives of the seven people refused to allow part I of the inquest into the deaths of their loved ones unless an undertaking was given by the coroner to complete part II of his investigation. All were issued with interim death certificates, and some relatives have still not received final death certificates. The coroner has not returned to complete part I of the inquiry on the seven whose deaths were not dealt with in April 1990 and he has not returned to part II of any of the investigations. He said that he was not doing so because other investigations and judicial inquiries were doing the job.
  978
  The fact is that the deaths were not properly investigated or decided on by either of the two unsuccessful public prosecutions or by the private prosecution. The law states that, if a repetition of what had happened could lead to a further loss of life, the coroner is usually obliged to resume his inquest and complete it. That has not been done.
  The master of the Bowbelle was prosecuted on the limited charge of not keeping a proper lookout and it was made clear that the offence was committed when he had left Nine Elms. Prosecuting counsel made it quite clear that that offence was irrelevant to the sinking of the Marchioness and the loss of 51 lives. The skipper never gave evidence. The jury did not agree. There was a retrial; the jury could not agree again. But in the words of prosecuting counsel, that prosecution had nothing at all to do with the sinking of the Marchioness, so that does not excuse the Government's unwillingness to hold a public inquiry or the scandalous unwillingness of the coroner to conduct his business properly.
  Then there was the private prosecution, which at the outset was obstructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who harassed the lawyers representing people who had been killed. Following public uproar, the DPP had to withdraw from that scandalous approach.
  Then we had the committal stage hearing. The judge stopped that, saying that, on the strength of what he understood at the time, the Marchioness might well have been at fault so the matter could not be put to the jury.
  The next excuse for not holding a public inquiry and not completing the inquest is the Hayes report. That was not an inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South pointed out, its terms of reference did not ask or even empower it to investigate the Marchioness-Bowbelle disaster; it was charged with examining the handling by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers generally. That was totally inadequate.
  All those lawyers had to be paid for. At the end of all that expenditure, one basic thing is clear beyond doubt: the authorities still do not know for certain where the two boats crashed. It follows as surely as night follows day that, if we do not know where they crashed, we cannot begin even to consider how or why they crashed.
  The survivors and the relatives believe that a substantial number of questions have not been answered. Worse still, they believe that some of the questions have been wrongly answered by those set in authority over us. They want the inquest reconvened and completed and they want a full public inquiry. The reason why they want a full public inquiry—and the House should support them—is that they feel that there should be an inquiry that covers all aspects of the accident. They think that each and every piece of evidence that is available should be challenged—and it would be challenged for the very first time.
  Such an inquiry would provide an opportunity for evidence to be heard from the new witnesses revealed in the television programme and in the letters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South referred and an opportunity to challenge the shabby technical evidence produced by the Department of Transport.
  Further questions remain to be answered including the fundamental question: where did the accident happen? British officialdom says that it happened east of Southwark bridge. As far as we know, the only evidence that it has for that—we have not been told about anyone else with any

  979
  evidence—is that provided by the lookouts who are alleged to have been on the bows of the Bowbelle. There are those who believe that the two dodgy witnesses on whom the Government rely were not there in the first place.
  All the other witnesses who have made their views public say that the incident occurred west of Southwark bridge, or on the western side of the edge of the bridge as the boats went under it. That evidence is from people on the Hurlingham, the other pleasure craft that was around at the time, and from those who survived the Marchioness sinking themselves. If the sinking took place where they say it happened, the charge that the accident resulted from a change of course by the Marchioness is simply not believable—and if that did not happen officialdom's version of events simply collapses. Those who are concerned about the Government's inactivity and failure believe that the explanation in plain and simple: The Bowbelle ran down the Marchioness. It hit and ran; then it stopped, and then it went on again.
  It did not render any assistance to the rescuers. Why not? There are doubts that the lookouts were in place. We know that the visibility was such that people in the Bowbelle's wheelhouse could not see a damned thing in front of them in the water. We also know that the man steering the Bowbelle—the poor man is now dead—had defective hearing, sight and speech. Such defects are not generally expected in someone in charge of such a boat.
  The Bowbelle and her sister ships had been involved in more than 50 incidents of ramming, banging and bumping into other boats and bits of piers and bridges. The survivors and the relatives of the dead want to know why the Director of Public Prosecutions did not prosecute the skipper of the Bowbelle for more serious offences, and why he took no action against the company. We now know that that company knew all about the inadequacies of the communications, lookout and engine control systems.
  Why did the DPP decide to try to obstruct the private prosecution? Why was the inquest not resumed after all three prosecutions had failed? Why were the police so slow in getting to the Bowbelle? A member of the company management got from Southampton to the Bowbelle before the police managed to get on to the boat. Who, other than the lookouts on the Bowbelle, gave evidence in secret about where the crash occurred? People want an opportunity to challenge that evidence.
  People also want to know who decided to sever the hands of some of the victims in the water, and they also want to know why that was done. They want to know whether the hands of 26 victims were severed, as stated by the coroner, or whether it was the hands of six or seven victims, or no more than nine, as stated by different parts of the Metropolitan police.
  Why has there been no public inquiry? People know from the Hayes report that the original call for a public inquiry was blocked by 10 Downing street. Why? Fifty-one people were killed in the Marchioness disaster. At King's Cross 31 people died and a public inquiry was held. At Clapham 31 people died, and again there was a public inquiry. What was different about the Marchioness?
  We know what those disasters had in common. The people responsible for investigating the Marchioness disaster were from the Department of Transport; they were also responsible for regulating the river and had made a
  980
  lousy job of it, so they were partly at fault for what happened, which means that they were also attempting to investigate themselves because they were responsible for the generally unsafe culture on the Thames at that time.
  It was the same with the investigation into the Piper Alpha disaster and with the railway inspectorate's investigation into the disasters at King's Cross and Clapham. The difference is that this is the only major disaster in which the people responsible for it, the boat's owners, contribute substantial amounts to the Tory party. They contributed nearly a third of a million pounds during the 1980s. They have close connections with the Tory party and have ex-Tory Members on the board. At the time of the disaster, one was a consultant to them.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: That is sad.
  Mr. Dobson: It is sad, but there are many things a hell of a lot sadder than exposing where the Tories get their money: 51 uninvestigated deaths are not just sad—they are a scandal and a disgrace on the Government.
  The other reason why the Government do not want an inquiry is that they and their powerful friends are scared witless at the prospect of corporate manslaughter being accepted as the law of this land. That is why they do not want a full and thorough investigation. All the investigations into major disasters of recent times have been inadequate in one way or another. We need a review of the whole process. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I appeal to the Whips not to have conversations during a speech.
  Mr. Dobson rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There must be no comments from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Dobson: God bless you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My final point is that the duty of the Government, and of the House, is not to protect corporate wealth and people who pay themselves well and say that they take great risks and bear great responsibilities but who do not want to take the blame when things go wrong in their organisations. That is not our duty; our duty is to the real people of this country—to the people who were drowned on the Marchioness, to their relatives, to the people who survived, and to the others who are concerned.
  We owe it to them, and to all our constituents, to ensure that we have in place machinery that genuinely, properly, openly, honestly and competently investigates deaths, and presents reports that are acceptable because they are thorough and truthful. None of that can be said in the case of the Marchioness, and until it can we shall continue to support the survivors, and the relatives of those who died, and we shall join my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South in relentless pursuit of the slack, idle and incompetent Department of Transport.
  1.20 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for seeking and using the opportunity of the debate to raise again the subject of what happened to the Marchioness. In Southwark cathedral there is a memorial to the 51 people who died on that August morning four and a bit years ago. A memorial is a fine thing, and it is a fine

  981
  memorial, but those who survived that incident, and the families of those who died, would rather have a different memorial.
  I hope that I can persuade Ministers that they need to revisit the series of decisions that have so far meant that there has not been what is conventionally understood to be a public inquiry. There has been no opportunity for the people with the greatest interest to ask the questions that they want to ask, and to have them answered. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government should be at all reluctant to allow that to happen now, if that should still be the request of the families and the survivors. Indeed, there is an obvious reason why it should happen now. I had rather the Minister gave a cautious non-committal reply tonight, and said that he would at least consider the question with the Secretary of State, than a speedy cavalier reply to the effect that what we ask is not possible.
  I note that in the report written on the general subject of river safety—as the House has been told several times tonight, that report is, as it were, the second report following the sinking of the Marchioness—Mr. Hayes, the representative of the Law Society who was asked to undertake the report, wrote in paragraphs 1.6 and 1.7:
  "I was aware that the Marchioness Group and others wanted a Public Inquiry which would have had wider terms of reference than those assigned to my investigation or that of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. They argue that, with a full and public investigation into the tragedy, the whole story would have been out in the open and they could have come to terms with their loss and begun the process of grieving. They say that they cannot begin to live with their grief until a full public inquiry is held."
  Mr. Wells: Why?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with that question in a moment.
  Mr. Hayes's report continued:
  "When the disaster occurred I understand that the decision not to order a public inquiry was taken at No. 10 Downing Street on advice from the Department, although earlier transport disasters on a similar scale had received a different response. In this case it was decided to follow the procedure regularly adopted for the investigation of major air accidents."
  The time that has passed since the Marchioness sank will have helped the process of healing in some way. It has never been the case, however, that people who unsuccessfully persist in their desire to get to the bottom of things come to accept that they have reached the end of their quest. We know from history that families will go on asking what happened until they feel that they have got the answers. Unless we give them that opportunity, they will go on asking and the questions will not go away. It would be better, more politic and fairer for the Government to accede to the request for a public inquiry.
  An odd sequence of events followed the sinking of the Marchioness. First, the Government responded quickly and decided to ask the marine accident investigation branch, which had been established the month before, to carry out what was its first inquiry. The MAIB is an anomalous body. It is also an unsatisfactory agency in terms of objectivity because it operates in effect from within the Department of Transport and it is not perceived as being independent of the Department. I am not saying that there should not be an agency to do a job on behalf of that Department, but that is a different matter. The hon. Members for Newham, South and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—the Opposition spokesman on
  982
  transport—and I want another agency, entirely independent of the Government, to consider what happens when people die as a result of a public transport or other transport accident.
  An independent inquiry investigated the accidents at Clapham and King's Cross and there is no reason on earth in terms of British law and administration why a similar inquiry should not be held into the sinking of the Marchioness. It is not enough for the Government to say that, after the MAIB report, they then commissioned Mr. Hayes to produce the report on river safety. That report was meant to consider the safety implications for the country of the sinking of the Marchioness and to cover wider issues than that accident, and Mr. Hayes made it clear that it would not deal with factual questions relating to the Marchioness.
  The Government may say that a large number of inquiries of one sort or another have been conducted into the sinking of the Marchioness. Inquests were held, court cases were conducted and reports were published.
  Before I was elected to the House, I appeared at inquests as a lawyer. I also appeared in court cases when people were prosecuted for breaching health and safety requirements and other professional and employment rules. In case I am accused of not recording a relevant fact, at some stages I was also instructed by Ready Mixed Concrete. That does not preclude me from being as critical of that company as I need to be for the purpose of this issue and debate.
  None of the inquiries has been satisfactory and the procedure behind them is grossly unsatisfactory. After an accident, inquests are held, criminal prosecutions may be undertaken and it may be necessary to hold an inquiry. Society has not sorted out how those procedural systems interrelate. We should not ever put people through the living hell of an inquest that starts and never finishes, with potential prosecutions that may follow or precede the inquest and then interrelate them with a public inquiry which may or may not ever happen.
  I beseech the Government—the matter is not just the responsibility of the Department of Transport—to relay the matter back to other departments, such as the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Law Officers Department, so that it can be looked at again. If I had ever been lucky enough to get a private Member's Bill into the top 20, I would have considered introducing a Bill to reform the inquest procedure so that this was sorted out Once and for all, so that the sequence of events happened together and people were not discriminated against in terms of the danger of prosecution, that the facts are got at quickly, and matters resolved. There is a way through and that knot needs to be untied.
  That has not happened, and the fact that we had an inquest, as we were bound to have, although it was never brought to a conclusion, and the fact that there was a prosecution, although there were arguments about what it should have been for, and that it was a rather anomalous prosecution, suggest that there still is a case that a public inquiry could answer.
  I pay tribute to the crew who produced the "Despatches" report last week. The points that came up in that programme were those that they were prompted to investigate because the families and the survivors kept on pushing people to investigate them. I summarise them to make them clear. There were four factual ones, and a fifth substantive one that is also factual, but raises wider issues.

  983
  The first was the visibility from the deck of the Bowbelle, which is now shown to have been poor. The ship was always too high to allow a view of river from its bow or control room. There was no view on the night in question. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, the whole saga up to that event shows how the Department of Transport did a poor job, which is why one suspects a cover-up. The Department was roundly criticised even by the MAIB and the Hayes report.
  The Department's regulations state that the boat's maximum area of blindness should be no more than the length of two vessels. As the hon. Gentleman said, it was over 1,000 ft—twice the specified length. There was a recommendation that walkie-talkies should be used, but there was a refusal to issue them and there was no human lookout in place. The visibility question has not been adequately answered and dealt with.
  The second is the telegraph system—the information system on the Bowbelle. The instructions from skipper to engine room were often inaudible and there had already been an incident involving the Bowbelle as a result of that failing. Although the crew had regularly asked for a fixed communication link, they had not received one. That must be negligence in the generic sense of the word, if nothing else. In the end, it was much more than that: such a link was not installed until 13 months after the first complaint.
  Thirdly—this was alluded to all the time, and all of us who get the reports from the Port of London Authority knew it—there had been a whole series of incidents involving the Bowbelle and its sister craft. Any of us, whether on the shores of my constituency on the other side of the river, on the Southwark riparian edge, or whether from here on the Palace Terrace, have seen those long craft going up and down the river. Clearly, they are much more difficult to navigate, and they are much more liable to collision than a narrower or shorter craft.
  The fourth matter, which was explicitly dealt with in the "Despatches" programme last week, and rightly alluded to by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, was the clear unsuitability of one of the crew to do the job. None of us would criticise someone for having a disability or a handicap, but it is a cause for criticism if that person, by virtue of that disability or handicap, is not able to do his job. If a crew member cannot hear properly in a post where he is required to hear to ensure that he crews his boat safely, there is something wrong. Indeed, Department of Transport regulations stated that hearing aid users should not be allowed on deck, and dealt with such disabilities or handicaps.
  The last and most important issue was the location point. Where did the accident happen? What actually happened? The "Despatches" film made it clear that the marine consultant to the Department now accepts that passengers on the Marchioness would have felt something—a severe lurch to the left—if, as officially determined so far, the Bowbelle's path had been crossed by the Marchioness. In fact, both the skipper of the Hurlingham—the sister crew ship—and passengers say that the Marchioness was on a straight course. They say that it did not veer, lurch or suddenly shoot across the path of the Bowbelle in the early hours of that Sunday morning, and that it was therefore hit under Southwark bridge at the rear of the Marchioness—not amidships.
  984
  If that is true, we are presented with a crucially different fact. In a collision, the key question is, "How did the collision occur? Which bit of which vessel impacted on which bit of which other vessel, and what were the consequences?" Let me say this to the Minister: even if the other matters have been touched on, as they have, the evidence that is now clear about the point of collision suggests that the matter needs to be examined again.
  I ask Ministers not to be proud about the decision to let the MAIB act or the decision to let Mr. Hayes have his report, and not to be defensive about the history of the Department of Transport, but to do the one thing that would meet the very straightforward, persistent and continuing requests of the families and the survivors: to allow someone unconnected with the incident to hear from whoever wants to give evidence, so that the answers to the question, "What happened to my brother, sister, girl friend, child or me?" can see the light of day.
  Unless people who were there, or relatives or friends of people who were there, can ask those questions and every other difficult question until they receive answers, we shall continue to have debates like this. I hope that the Department will be generous enough to say that a public inquiry should be held sooner rather than later: the sooner it is held, the more accurate the answers will be, and the sooner the grief of those still suffering will be ended.
  1.37 am
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for raising this issue again. It is important for the House to act as a forum for important debates such as this. Let me repeat what I told the hon. Gentleman earlier this evening, when I explained why I would be answering the debate rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Minister for Transport in London: my hon. Friend will be replying to another debate later this evening.
  In preparing for tonight's debate, I was much moved by the words of the hon. Member for Newham, South in his Adjournment debate last year. He repeated some of those comments this evening to set the scene. I come to this issue with an open mind; it is not a question of pride or defensiveness. I want to make that absolutely clear.
  Let me respond to the comments in reverse order. What a contrast there was between the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the rantings of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The hon. Gentleman asked specifically why No. 10 had decided to take a particular course without being certain that that was where the decision was made. It is perfectly obvious to me that, having just set up the MAIB to investigate this sort of accident, it would have been even more extraordinary if it had been bypassed and an alternative method had been chosen to investigate the disaster.
  The inquest was not used to determine culpability. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made some extremely telling points, and he carried me with him. I shall draw his remarks about inquests to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. He made a good point that needs examination.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Key: No. I only have about 10 minutes left.

  985
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked whether the inquest would be resumed and if not, why not. An application to the divisional court for judicial review of the coroner's decision not to resume the inquest was dismissed on 9 July 1993. I understand that an appeal has been lodged, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked if I had seen the "Despatches" programme throughout. The answer is, no, but I have done better. I have had the opportunity of studying the transcripts in detail. That is rather better than the distraction which will inevitably occur when watching the programme right through. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, in order to get to the heart of the problem, it is sufficient just to watch a television programme right through, I am surprised at him. He has sought to smear the judicial system and the official system and bring them into disrepute.
  The MAIB report is not shoddy. It is an excellent report, carried out by professionals. I think that the hon. Gentleman will regret the gratuitous offensiveness in which he has indulged by attacking public servants. Tomorrow, I shall be attending the funeral of one such public servant, killed in the course of his duty of serving the interests of transport in this country. The hon. Gentleman's attack is totally misplaced and very ill timed.
  We are facing a serious issue and hon. Members should take it sufficiently seriously. Anyone who has been involved in any tragedy involving loss of life, as I and I am sure other hon. Members have been, know the deep grief that it imposes on individuals, families and communities for many years to come. That is undeniable. The well-known concern of the hon. Member for Newham, South has again been aired. I express my condolences to those involved, because I come to the issue afresh. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, South has further interests in the disaster because of his considerable knowledge and experience, to which he has referred.
  The aim of the television programme, which was to set out what it claimed was "exclusive new evidence" was not met. It told a story which was fundamentally at variance with the official version. There is nothing new in that. It asserted that the story deeply compromised the Government's claim that all the facts are known. The official version of the incident is the report by the chief inspector of the MAIB, which was published in August 1991. That report was a culmination of a detailed and thorough investigation carried out by inspectors from that branch.
  Ms Joan Walley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Key: No. I am sorry, but I was given 20 minutes to reply to a debate lasting an hour and a half. I must get on.
  The inspectors were all well qualified. They are highly professional and experienced seafarers who are appointed to investigate accidents to or on ships.
  The branch in which they serve is completely independent of those who regulate marine safety. The chief inspector reports directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on marine accident investigations.
  986
  The television programme's claim was that MAIB's investigation did not consider all the evidence and that the new evidence that the programme brought to light justified the call for a public inquiry.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South will be aware that a public inquiry into a shipping accident is called a formal investigation. The procedures for such an inquiry are set out by statute, but the purpose of such an inquiry is particularly important. It is to establish what happened and to make recommendations to ensure that the accident or incident does not recur. Those terms of reference are no more and no less than those of an investigation carried out by the MAIB. They, too, are governed by statute and the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989 clearly set out, under regulation 4, the purpose of an investigation. So what would a public inquiry achieve that was not achieved by an MAIB investigation?
  Let me pick out some of the points made in that television programme. First, it identified the problems of the Bowbelle's design, particularly in respect of how they affected the keeping of a proper and efficient lookout. It also indentified the communication problems between the fo'c'sle head and the bridge on those vessels and how three hand-held radios were on board the Bowbelle that night but were not in use.
  The programme further commented on the fact that, traditionally, these vessels had been taken up river by pilots but that the practice had ceased some years before the Bowbelle-Marchioness accident. As regards the Marchioness, it identified the problems of keeping a proper and efficient lookout due to the vessel's design.
  Although all those points were well presented in the programme, they were not new evidence. They were all dealt with in considerable detail in the MAIB report, although the programme makers omitted to say so.
  The programme then listed a number of other points which, although their factual accuracy is not in question, were not relevant to the accident. One concerns the means of communication between the bridge and the engine room of the Bowbelle for the desired engine movement—the engine telegraph. It was described as an archaic system. Perhaps it is, but it had no relevance to the incident, as the captain of the Bowbelle made no attempt to alter the engine speed before the accident. Even after the accident, when he required a change in the engine speed, there is no suggestion that that archaic piece of equipment failed.
  Another point raised in the programme and one that is dear to the heart of the hon. Gentleman was the Bowbelle's history. The fact that a significant number of incidents are recorded involving that vessel is not disputed, but they have no direct bearing on the collision that night. The MAIB report devotes a whole section to previous incidents and the actions taken, and clearly sets out those whose circumstances were distinctly similar to the accident under discussion.
  The programme then devoted a considerable amount of time to looking into an accident that befell another of the Bow ships, the Bowsprite. That vessel broke in two in the southern North sea, sadly with the loss of four lives, approximately eight months before the Marchioness Bowbelle collision. How that accident helps support the argument for a public enquiry into the Marchioness Bowbelle accident is far from clear.
  From there, the programme returned to the Marchioness-Bowbelle incident and began to focus on the involvement of the Hurlingham. That was another

  987
  passenger launch, also on a night-time disco cruise, that was in the immediate vicinity of the accident and from which some people witnessed the accident. It explained in some detail the rescue efforts that were performed by those on board and stated that those efforts had never been recognised.
  I do not question the fact that some of those passengers performed heroic deeds that night, and that fact is acknowledged in the MAIB report. In his introductory letter, the chief inspector states:
  "My report would not be complete without recognition of the acts of bravery and skill that were performed during the search and rescue operation. These were not limited to the crews of the vessels involved in this operation but included a number of passengers."
  With two thirds of the programme now completed, it finally began to introduce its aim to set out the new evidence. In the words of the commentary, it would produce the evidence of one group of witnesses that seemed to have been ignored—
  "The story the Government seems reluctant to hear".
  That alleged new evidence was given by the skipper of the Hurlingham and two of her passengers. In essence, it was that the collision between the Marchioness and Bowbelle occurred either before the two vessels passed under Southwark bridge or as they passed through it. That evidence conflicts with the MAIB report, which considered that the collision occurred after the two vessels cleared Southwark bridge. The MAIB inspectors had access to that conflicting evidence and it was taken into account during the investigation, when the report was written.
  The vast majority of witness evidence—completely ignored by the television programme—was that the collision occurred between Southwark and Cannon street bridges. That includes the evidence of passengers in the Hurlingham who saw the collision and who were sufficiently familiar with the river to recognise their whereabouts, of witnesses ashore and, perhaps most importantly, the mate of the Marchioness. It is particularly surprising that the programme made no mention of the mate's evidence on that subject.
  The material evidence supports the same view. The wreck lay well to the east of Southwark bridge, and there was a strong flood tide. The programme presented the view of an expert that the alleged new evidence was supported by the nature of the damage sustained by the Marchioness. It was claimed that that indicated that she was struck near
  988
  her stern, arguing that she was on a steady course and not heading across Bowbelle's bow—as the MAIB report found. That in turn would place more responsibility on the Bowbelle than implied in the published report.
  The evidence provided by the damage to the Marchioness was fully considered by the MAIB, and careful examination of the relevant excerpt from the programme shows no inconsistency with the inspector's conclusions. There is no doubt that, as the expert said, the major damage amidships occurred when the Marchioness was rolled over, not at the time of initial impact. If anything, that supports the view that the Marchioness was heading slightly across the bow of the Bowbelle.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Key: I will, against my better judgment.
  Mr. Dobson: If the Minister is so confident that there is evidence from witnesses to support the MAIB's conclusions, will he do that desired by relatives of victims and survivors—publish it? Until now, it has been secret.
  Mr. Key: I was about to address that point.
  The programme cited one further piece of evidence to support its conclusion—the transcript of radio messages received by the Port of London authority at Woolwich, and their timing. The inspectors were well aware of that transcript. The programme disregarded the effect of the collision on the progress of the Bowbelle and the fact that it led to her partly losing control of her steering and making contact with Cannon street bridge. When allowance is made for that, the timing is fully in accord with the collision having occurred where the report found.
  To sum up that long review of the programme, I must advise the hon. Member for Newham, South that it did not produce any new evidence to warrant further inquiry. That cited in the programme covered no ground not examined during the MAIB investigation, and there is no case for a public inquiry into that accident, tragic though it was.
  Ms Walley: In the last minute remaining, will the Minister say why he is not prepared to make public and to place in the Library a copy of the evidence—
  In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—(Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

  Royal Marsden Hospital
  1.53 am
  Lady Olga Maitland: There has been some speculation about the content of my speech, not least in certain parts of the media. I make it clear that I welcome the broad thrust of the Government's reforms. Although I believe that there have been dirty tricks; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is blameless. Rather, I seek to blame petty-minded regional health authorities. My right hon. Friend and her able team have seen through those inadequate bodies and announced, rightly, their abolition. I leave it to other right hon. and hon. Members to interpret the Department's views on regional health authorities by that action.
  I take this opportunity to place on record my unswerving support for the reforms put in place by the Government. There are many difficult decisions to be taken and I do not envy my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State her difficult task. I am confident that she will continue to see her way through some of the murky undergrowth that is part and parcel of the advisory process. I am certain that she will ultimately make the right decisions for London and the nation as a whole.
  I have chosen to talk about the provision of cancer services in London, particularly south-west and west London. Many hon. Members will know that the London implementation group set up a group to
  "review specialist cancer services in London with the aim of achieving a more rational disposition, avoiding unwarranted duplication and providing a strong service and academic base for the future".
  That specialty review group reported to the Secretary of State for Health and the London implementation group in June 1993. Seven months later, we are still waiting for the outcome. While the group's aims were admirable, its recommendations were not. The reviews are only advisory, and should be seen as such. The Secretary of State can choose to dismiss some of the recommendations, as she did with the Tomlinson report.
  Cancer is a disease which affects all ages, both sexes and all areas of the body. The successful treatment of this complex and diverse disease has led many hospitals around the world to specialise in treating only cancer. Such specialist hospitals include the Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer centre in New York city and the Gustave-Roussy institute in Villejuif, France.
  We in London are the luckiest people, as we have the Royal Marsden hospital, with its associated Institute of Cancer Research, which provides treatment and relief from cancer for Londoners and those who live beyond. That hospital has been given as an example of one of the most successful in patient care, research and teaching by the respected Swiss-based International Union Against Cancer. That is the most prestigious international organisation involved in the fight against cancer. Among its many responsibilities, it sets standards on how to organise the fight against cancer.
  As many hon. Members will know, I am one of the Royal Marsden's most ardent and loyal supporters in this place. Almost a year ago, I spoke against the threat to the Royal Marsden when it first became apparent in the Tomlinson report. Not long after that, the Secretary of State for Health declared that she could see no convincing financial case for relocating the Royal Marsden to Charing Cross. However, despite that reprieve, the threat resurfaced
  990
  in the independent specialty review of cancer services in London that followed her statement. It proposes closing the Royal Marsden, Fulham road, by centring west London cancer services at Charing Cross, and incorporating the Royal Marsden, Sutton in St. George's trust hospital, Tooting. We would be fooling ourselves if we thought that that action alone could deliver the same level of services.
  Each part of the Royal Marsden has a distinct specialist role in addition to the treatment of the more common cancers. The Fulham road site specialises in cancer of the head and neck, melanoma, sarcoma, chronic leukaemia, gynaecological and urological tumours. At the Sutton site, neuro-oncology, lung cancer, lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, thyroid cancer, acute leukaemia, myeloma, testicular tumours, achildhood tumours, clinical pharmacology and gastro-intestinal are treated.
  Both sites are supported by palliative medicine, psychological medicine, comprehensive diagnostic services and rehabilitation facilities. The hospital is not naturally divisible; each part complements the other. The proposal is no more acceptable now than it was when suggested in the Tomlinson report. I intend to fight it again, with, I hope, the same success.
  Before discussing the reviews and their unacceptable recommendations, I shall take time to remind the House that we are talking about not merely another London hospital, but a national, or even specialist, international institution, whose importance in the worldwide battle against cancer cannot be overestimated.
  I understand that almost 400 hon. Members have received representations from the hospital pointing out that a signficant number of their constituents were seen or treated by the Royal Marsden. That figure demonstrates the national importance of the institution in fighting cancer, when local district hospitals need a specialist centre of excellence for referral.
  The Royal Marsden, with its associated Institute of Cancer Research, is at the forefront in pioneering research into the causes and treatment of the disease. Examples are too numerous to mention. The Royal Marsden is leading the way in its approach. Last year, it won the Queen's award for technological achievement. It was granted jointly to the Royal Marsden, the Johnson Matthey technological centre and the Institute of Cancer Research.
  Only in the past two weeks, the Royal Marsden has made further strides. For example, regular doses of drugs given to sufferers of breast cancer through a round-the-clock electronic pump may reduce the need for surgery. Consultants at the hospital have just started the first large-scale trial in Britain of a new treatment using a pump about the size of a pocket tape recorder, which patients strap to their waists. Women in the trial all have large cancers, but with no evidence of spread that would normally require a mastectomy.
  I have been told by Dr. Ian Smith from the Royal Marsden that they recently completed a pilot study that has encouraged them to believe that, by using a conventional anti-tumour drug administered in that way, they can significantly improve the effectiveness of treatment. Dr. Smith said that they were pleasantly surprised to find that the cancers disappeared completely in more than half the women studied. As a result, doctors were able to avoid surgery completely. In others, the size of the cancer was greatly reduced, making mastectomy unnecessary and requiring only limited surgery.

  991
  Another example of that sort of work is the pioneering research by Dr. Trevor Fowles and Professor Michael Baum into using the contraceptive drug Tamoxifen as an aid to lowering the risk of breast cancer. They ran a pilot study of 2,000 women with a family history of breast cancer. As a result of the encouraging figures from the original trial, it is now being extended to take in a further 15,000 healthy women who may be at risk because of their age.
  The Royal Marsden believes that it may be saving 3,000 lives a year. An unexpected beneficial side effect of the drug is that it also appears to help combat heart disease. Such initiatives—and I have chosen just a couple to outline—are helping to improve the quality of life immeasurably for many of us.
  It must be asked who, apart from a specialist cancer hospital with such resources, can invest in the future of women who may be healthy at the moment but who are doomed to die of breast or other cancers in 10 or 20 years. This is precisely the sort of work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to in her White Paper "Health of the Nation", when she stressed the need to tackle cancer as much by prevention as by cure.
  That sort of work can be done only in a comprehensive cancer centre where treatment and research go hand in hand, or, as they say at the Royal Marsden, from bench to bed and back to bench. Can anyone really imagine that that sort of arrangement between two specialist sister institutions can be replicated in ordinary general hospitals?
  Hon. Members will be interested to know that representations from all over the world have been sent to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister expressing alarm and dismay that the United Kingdom could possibly dismantle a hospital of such status, given its outstanding work in the prevention and treatment of cancer—demonstrating yet again with its advances in treating breast cancer that it is at the leading edge of research. That development was heralded not only by the national press, medical journals and other institutions, but throughout the world.
  I could reel off a list of dozens of internationally renowned institutions that are backing the Royal Marsden. However, I shall mention just a few. For example, there is the Ontario cancer institute in Canada, the Research Institute for Microbial Diseases in Japan, and the M.D. Anderson cancer centre attached to the university of Texas. Many institutions worldwide are chasing the same money for research. However, they realise the importance of the work of the Royal Marsden, and are therefore expressing their alarm.
  I come now to the reviews whose outcomes have so explicitly resurrected the threat to the Royal Marsden. It is good to know that the Secretary of State has an independent mind. When she was faced with unwelcome decisions as a result of the Tomlinson report, she took them. However, she has also been prepared to ignore the more reckless and foolhardy advice coming from bureaucrats in the national health service.
  That was demonstrated by the Royal Marsden as recently as February, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rejected Professor Tomlinson's recommendation to relocate the Royal Marsden and Royal
  992
  Brompton hospitals at a cost of £62 million. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will once again reject the same foolhardy recommendations.
  The Labour party claims that those reviews are Government policy. They are not. They are reports of advice. But sometimes it is necessary to reject advice, however well intentioned it is, and follow one's instincts.
  The first of the advisory reports was by the specialty review group which considered the provison of cancer services in London. That review group was required to produce its findings in a short time scale and has stated openly that the data collected presented difficulties in analysis and comparison.
  I accept that, in some areas, inaccuracies may have innocently occurred due to those problems. However, the level of subjectivity, unattributable statements and misrepresentation of the information provided was not to be expected in a report of such importance.
  The review group's argument against single specialty hospitals has not been substantiated, and its assertion that the Royal Marsden hospital cannot be considered as a comprehensive cancer centre is incorrect, using the review group's own criteria.
  In fact, the Royal Marsden is the only hospital in London that is closest to meeting the review group's own criteria for the provision of cancer services. Why has no one questioned that contradiction within the report?
  The report states that the bulk of the work at the Royal Marsden hospital is undertaken at Sutton, implying that the Fulham road site is underused and therefore dispensable. In fact, patient numbers are split 50:50. Both are integral to the comprehensive cancer service provided by the Royal Marsden hospital.
  In considering the future of the Royal Marsden hospital, the review group looked at a number of options, but did not adequately or fairly explore the Royal Marsden's plans for the Chelsea health sciences scheme, which the London implementation group was given the task of examining by the Secretary of State in "Making London Better".
  That idea has been expanded by Marmaduke Hussey and Sir Kenneth Stow, chairman of the Royal Marsden hospital and Institute of Cancer Research respectively, who have outlined their plan to make west London's medicine outstanding in every respect. Sir Ronald Oxburgh, the rector of Imperial College, has described the idea as a
  "once in a lifetime opportunity to create a grouping of medical capabilities and talent that could challenge any in the world in quality and size."
  I question whether the benefits that currently exist in the relationship between the Royal Marsden, Sutton, St. George's and other hospitals would be enhanced or improved by the hospital merging with St. George's. That would more likely result in the interests of the Sutton site being lost within the priorities of the numerous services located within a large acute hospital.
  It would make sense and be more beneficial if current supporting specialist links were maintained and, where possible, enhanced. The Royal Marsden should assume responsibility for the provision of cancer services at St. George's hospital on a contractual basis, as it already provides all of that hospital's radiotherapy. The identified benefits of merging the Royal Marsden, Sutton and St. George's in comparison with existing arrangements are grossly exaggerated and, more than that, unnecessarily expensive.

  993
  A further review called for by the Government looked into research carried out by the special health authorities, of which the Royal Marsden is one. Can it be coincidental that it shared common members with the specialty review and proceeded to come out with similarly damaging conclusions for the Royal Marsden? It was conducted by an expert advisory group the membership of which, in theory, should have been peer led. In fact, few members had knowledge of cancer and, even then, only in limited fields.
  None of the review group had experience in managing research and development in a large organisation. However, at least three of the members were direct competitors with the Royal Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research for research funds of their own. The Royal Marsden was also criticised in the report for being "inward looking and isolated" in the appointment of a joint director of clinical research.
  Let me put the record straight. The appointment was intended from the outset to be external. Indeed, the search was conducted on a global basis. However, the indecision over the Tomlinson report blighted the post for external candidates. Professor Baum, who came to the Institute of Cancer Research in 1990 via a chair at King's, was appointed instead. Other outside candidates were considered. Even one member of the expert advisory group was approached for the post.
  The search committee included two external professors, the scientific director of the Cancer Research Campaign, the second secretary of the Medical Research Council and the director of research and development at the Department of Health, Mr. Michael Peckham. That is hardly the action of an "isolated" institute, as the review team must have known.
  As part of the review, international referees were approached and asked for their opinion of the Royal Marsden. Those international experts gave the hospital an outstanding rating. However, the members of the review group, none of whom were national experts, let alone international experts, took it upon themselves to ignore that advice and to downgrade it. Who on earth did they think they were? I find it surprising and irregular. One could go on to describe it as morally unjustifiable.
  The whole report flies in the face of other independent reviews carried out. For example, the national research assessment exercise carried out on behalf of the Department for Education looked at 150 academic institutions. The institutions were graded on a scale of nought to five. Oxford university came first with a score of 4.8. The Royal Marsden hospital, with the Institute of Cancer Research, was graded sixth with a score of 4.4. Charing Cross hospital was graded 53rd with a score of just under 3.
  Graham Hart, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, has privately disowned parts of the expert advisory group research review on the Institute of Cancer Research which are of an adverse nature. Why, one must ask, has there been such a sustained attack on what most of us would agree is one of the finest cancer hospitals in the world and a hospital which I suggest should never have been part of the debate on acute services and overbedding in London? Let me tell the House the answer.
  Many hon. Members will have driven down the Fulham road and seen as they passed the magnificent Chelsea and Westminster hospital. Its 665 beds are built around a naturally ventilated and glass-roofed atrium the size of
  994
  Wembley stadium with a mall and eight courtyards. Trees and works of art were brought in and plays are staged on a raised platform. The view of the atrium opens up immediately from the hotel-like reception. Escalators run to the main reception and an out-patients area on the first floor. From there, banks of lifts take people to the upper floors. It is an estate agent's dream.
  The cost of this luxury is a record £202 million. The cost of beds averages out at nearly £250,000 each. Meanwhile, only two miles down the road, sits the Charing Cross hospital, which is only 20 years old.
  Due to an act of bureaucratic vanity, not to mention bad planning, an unnecessary hospital was built at vast cost and in an area that already has sufficient hospital provision. If there had not been, there would be no problems now with the health authority casting around for a hospital to close.
  After being severely castigated by the Public Accounts Committee last year for the massive planning blunder in allowing the Chelsea and Westminster to be built, North West Thames regional health authority has been determined to fabricate a role for the now redundant Charing Cross hospital to save its embarrassment. A health authority spokesman said:
  "We don't deny that our capital programme has been entirely eaten up by the Chelsea and Westminster during the past five years and will be again next year."
  This is the same health authority which diverted money from literally hundreds of other health projects up and down the country to fill the black financial hole that is the Chelsea and Westminster on the Fulham road.
  I am sure that many hon. Members will join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Health on abolishing such wasteful health authorities, but should they be allowed to inflict such damage in their dying gasps?
  I believe that much of the activity threatening the Royal Marsden has been orchestrated by the regional health authority. For example, I received a document on the future of Charing Cross hospital which included a one-page summary of key points that it wanted to convey. The document made remarks about the Royal Marsden that were factually incorrect and, as they could easily have been checked, could be subject to legal action.
  I find it offensive that staff at Royal Marsden have been subjected to such indefensible slurs on their professional representations. Doctors and nurses at the Royal Marsden have spent many hours—some have spent their entire working lives—in combating cancer. For another hospital to stoop to this level shows no morals.
  Several points are made that I find particularly objectionable, such as that Charing Cross
  "has a high reputation for serving the needs of decent everyday folk in West and Central London. We are not a hospital for the well-to-do. We have a few private patients compared to, say, the Royal Marsden Hospital where over 50 per cent. of the patients are private."
  That is wrong. Only 10 per cent. of the Royal Marsden's patients are private.
  The document continues:
  "Charing Cross Hospital is one of Britain's newest hospitals… Unlike the decaying 19th century or older hospital buildings you see in London."
  The Royal Marsden has recently begun £25 million-worth of redevelopment, in particular a new clinical block at Chelsea and a purpose-built paediatric unit in Sutton. By North West Thames regional health authority's own admission, it will require £20 million of maintenance to bring Charing Cross up to an acceptable standard.

  995
  The one-page summary goes on:
  "Charing Cross Hospital has a formidable international track record in providing specialist care in cancer… Single specialty hospitals are not equipped to deal with the numerous complications which may arise from cancer—e.g., renal failure, respiratory failure and neurological difficulties."
  Unfortunately, Charing Cross does not have
  "a formidable international track record",
  compared to the Royal Marsden, as witnessed by its poor rating in the recent University Funding Council research assessment exercise.
  Cancer as a disease is not organ-specific. The hospital therefore has a large number of specialties on site. In addition, it has links with a wide range of other specialties through its honorary consultants. The summary continues: "£10 million is spent on cancer research every year by the Charing Cross Hospital."
  The Royal Marsden, with its associated Institute of Cancer Research, spends more than treble this amount.
  The report continues:
  "Charing Cross Hospital houses the biggest cancer unit in the South East of England".
  That is factually incorrect and, in my opinion, a ludicrous statement. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand my sadness and, unfortunately, my anger about the fact that the Riverside health authority, under the direction of the North West Thames regional health authority, has been allowed to put out such untruths.
  What is my solution to the over-provision of services in west London? While not wishing to be drawn into a debate about whether Hammersmith hospital should move to Charing Cross hospital, or vice versa, I propose that Charing Cross's acute services should be located at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital to help to fill it, and that the provision of cancer services at Charing Cross and Hammersith hospitals should be moved to the Royal Marsden, which could then expand at marginal cost—estimated to be less than £1 million—to take on the extra patients.
  That must be the least contentious solution; it would not only save the Royal Marsden but go some way to solving the problems facing the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. In effect, the Royal Marsden, with its institute, would continue to be dedicated to fighting cancer in its many forms at Chelsea and Sutton.
  The Royal Marsden is not only held in the highest esteem here and abroad but is a much-loved institution. Many former patients have told me that, during the first terrifying days when their cancer was diagnosed, the very name "Royal Marsden" was a huge comfort to them. Dare I suggest that the name "Charing Cross", or even "Hammersmith", scarcely has the same resonance?
  Time and again, the public have demonstrated their love for the Royal Marsden. Indeed, sometimes it has been impossible to hold them back. We have all been deluged with letters, some of which give very personal accounts. Let me put it on record, however, that I have received assurances from the chairman and the chief executive of the Royal Marsden that letter-writing campaigns by children or other groups of patients to hon. Members have in no way been orchestrated by the management of the hospital. They have been entirely spontaneous.
  I was privileged recently to hand to the Prime Minister the largest petition that he has ever received. It consisted of nearly 1 million signatures asking for the Royal Marsden
  996
  to be saved in its entirety. There have also been numerous letters from distinguished supporters here and abroad, the majority of whom are internationally renowned cancer experts.
  However, I should expect the Secretary of State to base her decision not on mere emotional arguments but on a rational and cost basis. By rational, I mean facts such as those presented by Dr. Michael D'Souza and 44 of his fellow GP fundholders in south-west London. With the leave of the House, I shall read part of his letter which was published in The Daily Telegraph:
  "We are general practitioners who are currently placing our intentions to purchase health care in 1994 for a population of about 100,000.
  We are used to sending patients to the Royal Marsden and wish to go on doing so for many years to come. We declare our intention to place contracts with this hospital at its present Fulham Road site for the foreseeable future. Since it is the aim of the NHS reforms that taxpayers' money should follow where general practitioners decide to send patients, it would appear that those planning to close the Marsden now can only do so in open defiance of Government policy".
  Dr. D'Souza eloquently sums up the arguments—that is what the reforms of the health service are all about.
  Let us consider the moral issue of the £25 million of donations raised by the Royal Marsden from the public over the past two years. It has spent that, plus a further £13 million from the Government, on new, state-of-the-art facilities which have enabled the hospital to remain in the first division in the world. What will the generous donors think if their money ends up as rubble in the Fulham road?
  Many hon. Members have told me that the Government do not want to close the Royal Marsden. Instead, they said, the Government wish to strengthen the hospital by consolidating its services on the Sutton site. Let me state now, as the Member of Parliament for Sutton and Cheam, that that is not the solution. The greatest strength of the Royal Marsden—and its associated institute—is its ability to work as one hospital from both Chelsea and Sutton, serving not only the population of west and south-west London but the country as a whole. Moreover, if the Chelsea site were closed, it would be impossible simply to rehouse all its facilities and patients at Sutton.
  The Secretary of State has herself directed the Royal Marsden to prepare and submit an application for trust status. That has now been done. The Royal Marsden looks forward to the challenges of the internal market within the national health service, and believes that it will flourish. The Royal Marsden's confidence in its future as a successful trust hospital is based on the indicative contracts that it has with purchasing authorities nationwide, and the declared intentions of GP fundholders, who have complete faith in it.
  The Government introduced the internal market into the national health service in the firm belief that market disciplines would radically overhaul the levels of efficiency within the NHS. It was also judged that the marketplace would be the best determinant of the nation's health needs. I welcome that wholeheartedly.
  The Royal Marsden is asking for the opportunity to prove itself in the marketplace, in keeping with the Government's own philosophy. Surely it is the patients, as purchasers of hospital services, who should be trusted to decide which hospitals they want to use, thereby determining which hospitals will rightly survive in London and which will not. I leave the bureaucrats with one thought: who gains if the Royal Marsden is cut in half?
  2.26 am
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on initiating the debate—although I must say that I thought that it would be a more wide-ranging debate dealing with cancer services in London generally rather than simply with those offered at the Royal Marsden.
  I must say that I was somewhat surprised by the hon. Lady's speech. By implication at least, she denounced the inadequacies of the internal market and its failure to protect the Royal Marsden, but she failed to recognise that the three reports on London undertaken over the past 12 months have helped to create the chaos that she described so well, and that that chaos is the result of Government policy.
  The hon. Lady supports the Government's reforms—except in so far as they relate to her own hospital. I repeat that we are talking about the Government's health policy: it is simply not good enough to paint a picture in which the Secretary of State and her Ministers have no responsibility for, no idea of and no connection with the policies that they are pursuing. To try to blame it on civil servants who are responsible and accountable to those Ministers as if they had had a bad dream and decided to bring this chaos down on us is simply unacceptable.
  The hon. Lady complained about and singled out Charing Cross. In doing so, she was again describing the way in which the market operates. In London, as elsewhere, the Government have been operating on the basis of a totally false premise. They promised the review of services, a planned transfer and investment in primary care. In London in particular, they have demonstrated their unique incompetence to deliver their objectives.
  In describing the problems of the Royal Marsden, the hon. Lady might bear in mind the fact that they can be multiplied by 28 in London alone, where numerous hospitals are threatened with closure or mergers that they do not want. Cancer and its treatment and the importance of that treatment are, I hope, well understood by hon. Members. Cancer is the second major cause of death: one death in four is the result of it. In the age group 45 to 54, half of all female deaths are from cancer.
  The Government undertook a review of facilities in London. Central London has 11 specialist cancer units, but it would be invidious to pick any one as a centre of excellence. The Royal Marsden has been mentioned, but equally, Bart's could have been mentioned, and its fate is currently unknown. The review was based on information about the number of expected cases, and the review groups made specific proposals about the north-east, south-east, south-west and west, and made recommendations about the Royal Marsden. As we have heard, there has been a massive campaign to try to protect the Royal Marsden and other hospitals from the ravages of that review.
  What qualifications or abilities have the Government demonstrated to show that they understand the services that London or the rest of the country need? The answer may be found in parliamentary questions, and I shall quote from a few to show the Government's lack of understanding and knowledge.
  I asked the Secretary of State for Health about the percentage of patients diagnosed as having cancer who see a cancer specialist. It is important that people have access to such services, and it is particularly important for the
  998
  Government to plan those services, although we dispute their claim that they do. I was told that the information was not held centrally.
  I asked what assessment had been made of the correlation between the degree of specialisation of consultants and the levels of morbidity and mortality among their patients. The Government confirmed, even though they do not know, the number of patients who see cancer specialists. They said that the likelihood of survival is greater if people see a specialist in the discipline. We asked about the ratio of specialists to population. That ratio is among the lowest in Europe. The Government know that people should see specialists and that we have the lowest number of specialists in Europe, but they do not know whether patients see them.
  We asked about the waiting times for mastectomy in the past five years, and were told that the information was not held centrally. They do not know how many specialists there are and whether they are adequate; nor do they know whether people are seeing specialists or whether target waiting times are being satisfied. That is in spite of the fact that they issue guidance and know that, even after clinical diagnosis, women have to wait from three weeks to three months for treatment.
  We decided to test the Government further, and asked the Secretary of State to list the London teaching hospitals with professors of general practice. She told us that the information was not held centrally. We asked her to list the hospitals in London that had been closed since 1989. She told us that the information was not held centrally. We asked her to name the hospitals that had been closed in each of the past 10 years. She told us that the information was not held centrally.
  Finally, we asked the right hon. Lady what her plans were for restructuring the national health service in London. She referred us to "Making London Better", and said that the resources would be available so that change took place
  "in an orderly fashion and no proposal will be agreed unless it offers a sound basis for delivering a high quality and cost-effective service to patients."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 463.]
  I asked myself what the Government know about health. Do they understand that there is chaos in London, with hospitals being undermined by their policy? Do they understand that they have sacked more nurses and created more management posts than any other Government—and that in three years they have created 18,000 or more new management posts, which is more than our total number of consultants? I think that they do not.
  Do the Government understand that they are now being challenged over their most basic proposal for London—investment in primary care? Doctors' leaders are contesting the Government's claim that they will bring London's primary care provision up to a national standard. You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is supposed to be why the chaos exists in London; the idea is that, at the end of it all, we shall have better primary care. However, having studied the FHSA development plans, doctors are saying that there are no improvements, and that drastically needed improvements will not come about next year. The general medical services committee negotiators and the Tomlinson task force doctors are considering lobbying the Minister and health managers because the situation is so bad.

  999
  What will the Government do about all that? There is a growing number of hospital hit lists and a soaring number of bureaucrats, with new jobs being created all the time. The British Medical Association tells us that the GP fundholder system has led to fast-tracking and queue-jumping. There is a cash crisis, with a £100 million gap between what is needed in London and what is available. That puts London's care at risk.
  The flagship hospital, the Chelsea and Westminster, faces a loss of £1 million and has 112 empty beds, which the management describe as spare capacity:
  "This is entirely consistent with our plans for the future".
  Presumably, when people get lost among the many facilities now offered at the hospital and start to suffer from exhaustion, they will be admitted to one of the 112 empty beds—but the people on the waiting lists will not be allowed to use them. The atmosphere among staff at that hospital is described as desperately low, because staff do not know what their future will be.
  What about staff in the other hospitals? How do they know what their future will be? How are people in London to believe that the Government understand the cancer services we need, and have based their plans on proper information? The Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research are excellent clinical and academic institutions, yet the Government are inflicting random damage on them by letting loose an internal market.
  Earlier this week, a Government spokesperson admitted the chaos and problems being caused. Lady Cumberblatch said:
  "I recognise that it is impossible to avoid a period of uncertainty, which affects staff morale and the Government is committed to bring that uncertainty to an end as soon as possible".
  That is not in sight. We have no information about when the plans will be introduced.
  The Minister must tell us what the future will be for the 29 hospitals blighted in London. What is the future of cancer services? When will the additional resources for primary care be made available? When will the Government make up their mind on the three reviews? When can we expect the establishment of a health authority for London that plans London's health needs? How do the Government expect strategic planning of a health service to be undertaken while the internal market operates and destroys that planning?
  Until the Government can address those questions, we can only see a future in which our centres of excellence continue to be undermined. People will receive cheap treatment, but it will not be the best treatment.
  2.40 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for her contribution. You may have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that dawn was breaking early, but, alas, it was a mirage. The hon. Lady referred to Lady Cumberblatch and thus managed to combine the names of two of my noble Friends in an interesting way.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for initiating the debate. Her constituency includes one of the Royal Marsden sites, so she is well versed in the issues surrounding the future of
  1000
  that hospital. That is why, to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South, my hon. Friend dwelt on that hospital.
  My hon. Friend had an Adjournment debate on the same subject earlier this year, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health responded. My hon. Friend is aware that the NHS trust status application for the Royal Marsden is out for consultation until next month and she will be aware that I can say nothing which might pre-empt or prejudice that consultation or the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which will follow.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South referred to planning blight. The Government recognise the difficulties that uncertainty about the future of health services in London can cause, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will appreciate that such decisions cannot and should not be rushed: they must be right.
  The Royal Marsden hospital is one of the eight London postgraduate teaching special health authorities. Its prime role, in partnership with the Institute of Cancer Research, is research and development—ranging from basic science to clinical research and health services, dissemination of good practice to the wider health service, and postgraduate and post-basic teaching and training of doctors, nurses and others. In recognition of that special role, and unlike other provider units, the hospital has for some years been managed and funded directly by the NHS Management Executive.
  Before any decision is made on the Royal Marsden, the report of Professor Tomlinson, and the Government's response in "Making London Better", the recommendations of the cancer specialty review, Sir Michael Thompson's review of research at the SHAs, the decisions on the future funding of the special health authorities and the decision of the Royal Marsden to apply for trust status will all be taken into account.
  I do not wish to repeat in detail the analysis that the Tomlinson report contained. Suffice it to say that although he recommended that the Royal Marsden's services on the Chelsea site should form the basis of an integrated and rationalised west London cancer service at the Charing Cross site, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to the House earlier in the year:
  "On the basis of the information before me, I have decided that there is no financial case for relocating… the Royal Marsden hospitals to the Charing Cross hospital."—[Official Report, 16 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 135.]
  My hon. Friend noted and paid tribute to that decision.
  The Government responded in February with the publication of "Making London Better". That set out a clear framework for change. It was not the purpose of that report to lay down a blueprint for the future. We therefore established a special implementation group under the chairmanship of Sir Tim Chessels, to carry forward a structured programme of change and, as part of that change, to consult widely, openly and genuinely. The group will advise the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education on the implentation of decisions on the future development of health services in London and on the implications for medical education and research, will secure agreement among interest parties and oversee implementation of the changes.
  Ms Primarolo: While the Minister is explaining the review procedure, will he tell us what steps the Government will take to protect all the hospitals while the reviews are being undertaken and there is all the

  1001
  speculation about their future, so that any decisions that might be taken by the Secretary of State are not pre-empted by an internal market that has already forced the hospital into reduction or closure?
  Mr. Bowis: If the hon. Lady will listen and wait, we shall come through the procedures. I have already said that nothing that I say tonight must prejudice or pre-empt anything where decisions are being taken now, or are to be delivered shortly.
  A key element informing the moves towards a more streamlined hospital service is the recommendations of the six speciality reviews that were set up on the recommendation of the Tomlinson report. The specialty review reports were published in June this year and are the latest in a long line of reports to highlight the problems of duplication of specialist services in London. That duplication works against patient care and can lead to undersized units possessing resources that are not fully used.
  The aim of the reviews was to recommend a more rational disposition of services in six specialties—cancer, cardiac, neurosciences, plastics and burns, renal, and children's specialist services. The primary concerns were quality of care, value for money and ensuring that London remains a centre of clinical, teaching and research excellence. The review believed that change was needed and that excellence in service, research and educational terms was more likely to be sustained in larger multi-specialty units with strong multi-faculty links. The outcome of the SHA research review also needs to be considered.
  The review teams were independent, and led by eminent clinicians from the specialties concerned. Their membership included London purchasers, GPs, nurses and patient representatives. The recommendations were made following an extensive programme of visits to the hospitals that might be affected by change and took into account previous studies and written submissions from a wide range of sources. The specialty review teams each developed a specification for a specialist centre, on the basis of which they evaluated current service provision and made recommendations for the future pattern of services. Their assessments took into account available information on the scope and scale of the specialty, appropriate models of care, criteria for a tertiary centre—including size, staffing levels, facilities and links with other services—academic links and performance—including undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and research—the quality of service and convenience for patients, and the financial viability and comparative costs of hospital sites. The two main themes that emerge from the reviews' recommendations are first, London's tertiary services need rationalising to sustain excellence in service, teaching and research and to deliver good value for money and, secondly, the large number of relatively small tertiary centres in London are increasingly constrained by their small size.
  It is important to remember that the specialty review reports are advice to Ministers and the service. They will help to inform decisions about the future pattern of services in London and will be considered alongside the site option appraisals. The review of research in the special health authorities, which was published in July as strategy, is
  1002
  being developed by purchasers of local services. The last element is particularly important if services are to be genuinely targeted at patients' needs.
  The London implementation group, which is part of the NHS Management Executive, has collated responses to the specialty reviews from the Thames RHAs, London purchasers and the hospitals affected. Those responses will also be important in informing decisions about the future configuration of hospital services, including those provided by the Royal Marsden.
  The cancer specialty review was independent advice to the Government, and also to the NHS more generally. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not policy, nor was ever intended to be, and will not on its own shape the future of the Royal Marsden hospital. I can further assure her that no proposals to change cancer services in London will be agreed unless they offer a sound basis for delivering high-quality, cost-effective services to patients.
  To show how seriously the Government take issues involving research and teaching, we commissioned a comprehensive review of the special health authorities' research programmes. The Royal Marsden, in line with the other special health authorities, provided evidence to an independent review group of both national and international experts set up by Professor Peckham, the NHS Management Executive's director of research and development. That distinguished review committee, led by Sir Michael Thompson, vice-chancellor of Birmingham university, reported in the summer.
  My hon. Friend referred to the expert advisory group that considered the quality of research at the Royal Marsden. The group reported in confidence to Sir Michael Thompson's review committee and a copy of the report was given—also in confidence—to the chairman of the Royal Marsden special health authority. Any subsequent correspondence with the SHA was also in confidence, and it would be quite wrong for me—and not in the best interests of the hospital—to refer to the contents of that report, or indeed such correspondence, today.
  In the light of the committee's report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has approved substantial central support to protect high-quality research. By 1997, nearly two thirds of SHA funding will be provided centrally, under contracts that will offer considerable protection to these hospitals as they join the internal market from next April.
  It has been Government policy for some time that the special health authorities should join the NHS internal market in April 1994 and that they should apply to become trusts—subject, of course, to public consultation and the normal assessment process. The Royal Marsden's trust application is currently out to public consultation, which ends on 3 January 1994. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should then be in a position to consider making a decision on whether to allow the hospital to proceed to trust status.
  I am conscious that the Royal Marsden has been generously supported by many charitable sources. As a result, it has been able to invest millions of pounds in new equipment and bricks and mortar, which could not have taken place without this special commitment to the hospital. We certainly do not intend to put that generosity and good will at risk. Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend that if any major change were proposed, there would be discussion with the charitable donors who have recently contributed large amounts to the hospital. The aim

  1003
  would be to reach agreement on reusing donated assets elsewhere to the very best advantage. That assurance would, of course, apply not only to the Marsden but to any other hospital faced with a programme of major change.
  Ms Primarolo: How would resources in one hospital be moved to another, and who would pay for the relocation?
  Mr. Bowis: We are not talking about specific proposals to move anything anywhere; we are talking about discussing with the donors the results of their past donations and whether some of those resources could be moved and reused elsewhere—or perhaps used in a different way in their present location That is a matter for discussion with the donors and, whether it is the Royal Marsden or any other hospital, that is what we would expect to do.
  The Government value tradition and recognise the respect and affection in which the Royal Marsden is held both nationally and internationally. However, it is not sufficient to rest on past glories. We are determined to maintain and reinforce the best research and teaching of postgraduate students in all disciplines.
  Much of the NHS work in the special health authority meets specific patient needs and can be funded in part through the internal market with support for the extra service costs of research and teaching. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall exercise the greatest care in ensuring that the decisions that we make on the future of the hospital and of cancer services generally will reinforce the best research in those centres while allowing high-quality institutions outside London to benefit from NHS support for research.
  The Government are concerned to ensure the provision of a consistently high standard of care and treatment for cancer patients. The Department of Health has promulgated guidance on a number of issues, including in 1984, the organisation of acute services for cancer, in 1988, the minimum viable populations for radiotherapy centres, in May 1991, quality assurance in radiotherapy and in November 1991, the treatment of ovarian cancer. It is intended to produce new guidelines on the clinical management of lung cancer in the new year.
  Cancer services are funded through general allocations to health authorities. However, the Government have provided additional special funding to help develop cancer services, including £15 million in 1992–93 as the first phase of a three-year capital programme to provide linear accelerators for cancer treatment and scanners and other cancer equipment, including mammography equipment for X-ray departments. The Government have provided more than £150,000 per year for United Kingdom action in support of the Europe against cancer programme. We provided £43 million in 1993–94 for voluntary hospices, the bulk of whose patients have cancer, and supra-regional funding for four specialist cancer services to the tune of £8·6 million in 1992–93.
  As my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bristol, South have said, cancer is a major cause of illness and premature death. One in three people will develop cancer at some time in their life. That is why the Government have made cancer prevention a priority in the health of the nation and have set targets to reduce incidence and death from four major cancers—lung, skin, breast and cervix.
  1004
  Prevention alone is not enough. Treatment, care and palliation are also vital in working to improve public health and to reduce morbidity and mortality relating to cancer. That is why the chief medical officer has established an advisory group of acknowledged United Kingdom cancer experts to advise him on the treatment and care of patients with cancer and on the organisation and delivery of cancer services of the highest possible quality, with the aim of improving care and treatment outcomes.
  It has been argued that the United Kingdom has a smaller number of cancer specialists—oncologists—per head of population than any other country. It must be understood that many clinicians—surgeons, radiotherapists, physicians and general practitioners—have a role to play in the treatment and care of cancer. Crude comparisons of the numbers of oncologists is a misleading way of trying to estimate levels of service for cancer treatment. We are concerned to ensure that people with cancer, as with all other conditions, receive flexible and responsive treatment to meet their health needs, preferably close to home so that they have the day-to-day support of their family and friends.
  The Government are encouraging health authorities to increase the numbers of consultants by 2 per cent. per year to ensure a consistently high standard of care around the country. However, in increasing consultant numbers, it is for health authorities to decide the balance between specialties in the light of demands on services.
  Unlike other medical specialities, radiotherapy is devoted exclusively to cancer care. It requires a critical mass of professional and scientific equipment. The recommended minimum population for a radiotherapy centre is two thirds of a million. The Government are concerned at suggestions that patient services might suffer because of outdated radiotherapy and other specialist equipment. That is why we have made £15 million available over three years—1992–93 to 1994–95—as part of a rolling programme to help replace equipment. That concentrates largely on the provision of linear accelerators and other equipment. We encourage very high standards of quality and safety, and we promulgated guidance on quality assurance in radiotherapy in November 1991. Some equipment is old and is already being replaced, but it still gives safe and effective treatment.
  Funding was provided from this programme for hospitals in London in 1992–93. Linear accelerators were provided to the Charing Cross hospital and the London hospital, as well as to Mount Vernon hospital and the Royal Marsden hospital at Sutton, Surrey. Both the latter provide services for patients from London and the surrounding area.
  There are a number of specialist cancer centres around the country, such as the Christie hospital, Manchester as well as the Royal Marsden SHA.
  There is no quantitative evidence to support the claim that people treated for commonly occurring cancers in general hospitals do badly and may die unnecessarily. Such claims only cause anxiety to patients and relatives. The claim that patients do better in specialist cancer centres is also unquantified, except for comparatively rare conditions such as certain bone tumours, retinoblastoma, large eye tumours, and children's cancers. Where the need for specialist centres is established, the Government have provided additional funding. Concentrating all cancer treatment in specialist centres would require patients to travel further than they do now for regular treatment. There

  1005
  is a clear need to evaluate the relative effectiveness and outcomes of treatment and care in specialist units and in district general hospitals, to evaluate the most effective pattern of cancer services for patients and the public health. Any assessment of outcome should consider not only the length of survival but quality of life. These are highly complex issues. That is why the chief medical officer has asked a group of cancer experts to look at this, as I said earlier. We await that advice with interest.
  Ms Primarolo: I was told in a written answer:
  "Confidential audit work supported by the Department of Health, and international studies, indicate that consultants with specialist skills and experience achieve better outcomes".— [Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 302.]
  Why do the Government give such a written answer when the Minister has just told the House that there was no proof? Can the Minister explain that?
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady is talking about people and I was talking about centres.
  The key to successful treatment for many cancers is early detection. That is why we have put so much effort into cancer prevention and education to improve awareness of cancer and early symptoms and to encourage people to come forward for treatment. Cancer is a key area in the "Health of the Nation" and we have set firm targets for four cancers. The United Kingdom firmly supports the Europe against cancer programme and we lead Europe in having established national screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer.
  The NHS breast and cervical screening programmes are very successful. Uptake of screening in London may be lower than the national average, but this pattern is mirrored in other large inner-city areas such as Birmingham, and reflects to a large extent the problems of providing primary care services in areas with a substantial number of homeless or transient people and an ethnic minority community for whom English is not a first language.
  To answer the hon. Lady's point, that is why we are spending an additional £40 million on primary care in inner London health districts and a further £7 million on voluntary sector initiatives. I hope that she will join me in welcoming the moves already in the graph on cancer in the first full year of "Health of the Nation", where we see a 1·2 per cent. reduction in lung cancer deaths for women under the age of 75, a 3 per cent. reduction for men under the age of 75, and a 2·7 per cent. reduction in deaths from breast cancer. Those are steps in the right direction towards the targets that we have set.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned statistics, and cancer registration data are vital to monitor trends in the incidence of cancer over the years. As she knows, the data are collected regionally and consolidated nationally by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. There have been criticisms in recent years that data are incomplete and sometimes out of date, which is why the Department of Health set up a review of improvements recommended to the national cancer registration system to enable better monitoring of the effectiveness of measures to combat cancer. The OPCS has made real progress in improving computerisation of the national system and a senior doctor in the Department of Health chairs a steering group to oversee improvements, which includes representatives from registries and the relevant professional bodies. The outcome will be more accurate data provided more speedily.
  1006
  Research is the lifeblood of the NHS. London is at the leading edge and we have taken positive steps to ensure that it remains so. In the 1992–93 financial year, the Department spent approximately £1·4 million on cancer research through its health and personal social services centrally commissioned programme. That includes research undertaken in London, such as that of the cancer screening evaluation unit, clinical operational research unit, and social medicine and health services research into cervical and breast cancer.
  The Thompson report identified special health authority research of high scientific quality and importance to the NHS generally. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will be delighted, as I am, that the work of some research teams was rated among the best in the same field internationally or in the lead nationally. Following the research review, we announced substantial central support over the next three years to protect high-quality research and development in SHAs.
  The second recent initiative was the creation last month of a research and development task force under the chairmanship of Professor Anthony Culyer, pro-vice chancellor of York university, to review the ways in which the NHS currently funds its own research and development and supports that funded by others. Its findings are expected next spring. That is another demonstration of our determination to preserve and to extend our enviable record in health research.
  An advisory group under the NHS research and development programme was formed to review areas of need relating to cancer. It will make recommendations about priorities to the director of research and development next summer, focusing primarily on the needs of the NHS. That guidance will be particularly important to providers of research that the NHS needs, and that must include all research teams in London.
  In a broader sense, London plays a particular and important role in the national research and development programme for cancer that fully involves NHS research and development, major charities and also many smaller ones, the Medical Research Council, SHAs and London university.
  If London is to be best equipped to undertake world-beating cancer research in future, a great number of factors must be considered. For example, advice on the future organisation of cancer research suggests that basic research will become more complex and rely more on expensive equipment and specialised technical staff. We were advised by the specialty review that much of that research is likely to involve techniques beyond the cancer field and that there is growing importance in postgraduate training of a multidisciplinary—that is, integrated care—approach to cancer care. We know, too, that clinical research is heavily dependent on a sufficiently high throughput of patients.
  We must build on the current strengths of London's research institutions, developing existing links and collaborative working. To take one example from the cancer specialty review report, cancer research at Middlesex and University College hospitals in association with University college is highly regarded nationally. It is substantial in volume and wide ranging—from basic science and molecular medicine to clinical research and development. Strong research activity is found in surgical, clinical and medical oncology. Recent research investment in that respect totals £16 million.

  1007
  London's influence on research nationally is immense. We are determined to strengthen the capital's international reputation for medical research, including cancer research.

  Child Support Agency
  3.7 am
  Mr. George Mudie: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the operation of the Child Support Agency on the Floor of the House, but I am sad that the hour is such that few hon. Members are present. I hope, with other hon. Members, to impress on the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security the devastating effect of the Child Support Act 1991 on thousands of constituents throughout the country represented by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. As the hon. Gentleman is one of the most sensitive, if not more intelligent, Ministers in the Department of Social Security, I am sure that he will take the absence of right hon. and hon. Members as reflecting only the late hour and the heavy day that the House had yesterday.
  I sought this debate for three reasons. First, the 1991 Act is having a fearsome effect on a large number of individuals and families.
  They are not errant parents and youths, but responsible adults, most of whom have already made maintenance orders through the court and are making a contribution to their child. They are being hit out of the blue with demands that may keep some Treasury accountant happy, but make the individuals feel helpless and powerless. They see standards of life that they have rebuilt taken away from them, leaving them with no opportunity to appeal.
  My second reason is that, despite the fact that the Government seem aware of the growing problems thrown up as a result of the Child Support Act 1991, there seems to be a difference of opinion on how to deal with them. In the Chamber, the Prime Minister promised a review which he seemingly forced on a reluctant Department of Social Security. But the Department is apparently hostile to the idea of changes and defensive about the agency, and gives the impression that it wants to stall for as long as possible to see whether the pressure will blow itself away.
  When the agency's director came before the Select Committee on Social Security, she spoke of an even longer time scale for the review than had been mentioned in the House. She said:
  "The Department of Social Security will deal with the evaluation of the Act, and it will probably be over an eight to 10 year period."
  If that is a sign of what lies behind the Prime Minister's promise of an early review, it will be extremely bad news to thousands of people throughout the country.
  My third reason involves the protests that have arisen from the first 36,000 maintenance assessments—the total number sent out by the CSA to the end of September. We have seen the pressure that has arisen from, and the response to, those assessments. But, as the Minister is aware, that figure is only the tip of the iceberg. By the end of the year's operations—April next year—the agency predicts that it will have made 1 million approaches, and 750,000 assessments will have been made by agreement or otherwise. Hon. Members have encountered such pressure after 36,000 assessments, but, by next April, 750,000 families will have received such news.
  Harm is being done to people. There is apparent indecision on the part of the Government about how to respond. The numbers will explode in the next few months. Those are sensible enough reasons for bringing the subject to the Floor of the House.

  1009
  The basis of the Act is not contested. Neither here nor in my constituency have I heard any challenges being made to the Act's central aim—that, when a relationship ends, the father or mother, who become, in the slightly offensive terms of the Act, the "absent parent", should continue to provide financially for the well-being of the children from the relationship.
  It is accepted that, for whatever reasons—Government cuts in staff have played a major part—the old system was falling into disrepute. The numbers of lone parents receiving maintenance was continuing to fall, and the amounts paid varied to such a degree as to deny adequate defence. However, the replacement of the flexibility of the court system with an administrative formula with no flexibility has, for many people, meant the exchange of one extreme for another.
  When the previous Under-Secretary of State for Social Security replied to the Second Reading debate on 4 June 1991, he said:
  "I pledge to the House that we shall continue to listen carefully to sensible ideas for improving the Bill in Committee and its remaining stages. We shall honour our obligations to consult widely on the preparation and content of the regulations that will be occasioned by the Bill.
  The Bill relates to complex areas of social relationships, and we recognise that it would not be an easy task to get the Bill entirely right at the first attempt.
  "That is why many of its procedural details have been framed in the form of regulations. Should we need to change any of those regulations in the light of experience, that can be done in such a way that it will not affect the Bill's primary purpose of putting children first."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 242.]
  Perusal of the Committee proceedings after that speech shows that there was a feeling that the Government had not listened, but, as is customary in the Committee Corridor, saw any challenge to the details of the Bill not as a helpful response—even from an Opposition who had welcomed the principle—but as a hostile act. Therefore, the opportunity was lost as the Bill passed through the House. The question now is whether the Minister will have the humility to make changes or the Act will fall into disrepute and the fine central aim of providing for children be lost.
  What must he done? For a start, hon. Members and people in the country need some assurance that the hijacking of the Act by the Treasury will be resisted in future. Because of various events over the past few months, it is clear that the primary purpose of the Act—to provide for children—has taken second place to replacing Government money to lone parents on income support and family credit by absent parents' contributions.
  If any hon. Member feels that that is an exaggeration, he should consider a number of facts. It is clear that, whatever lip service is paid to providing lone parents with help, the overriding priority has been to save the Exchequer money. Some £530 million is to be extracted from absent parents this financial year, yet only £50 million will find its way to care parents. That is quite a division of the spoils—which, according to the Minister's evidence in the Select Committee, will rise to £900 million within four years.
  Further evidence emerged in July, when the Child Support Agency discovered from the first quarter's figures that, on assessments and, more importantly, benefit savings, it would have a massive shortfall. The Guardian reported a July strategy meeting and outlined what was subsequently confirmed as the new strategy. That consisted of three tactics—first, concentrating on middle-class
  1010
  fathers; secondly, maximising maintenance yield; and thirdly, that this was not the time for cases that should receive early attention.
  I shall read specific statements made at the Select Committee, which the Committee accepted as genuine. The first is:
  "staff of the Child Support Agency were being told to concentrate on extracting maintenance payments from middle-class fathers because the agency is in danger of failing to hit its first-year target of saving the taxpayer £530 million."
  The second is:
  "The name of the game is maximising the maintenance yield—don't waste a lot of time on non-profitable stuff."
  The third is:
  "This is not the time for the cases we know should get early attention but which will need a lot of effort to extract money."
  I ask the Minister to examine those statements and tell the House where the children or children's welfare is mentioned. Do those phrases and sentiments suggest concern for children, or a desperate attempt to meet financial targets imposed by the Treasury?
  Take a look at the title proudly volunteered to the Select Committee and proudly given by the CSA to its July strategy—"closing the gap". Does that refer to a delicate attempt to redistribute money between partners while keeping an already damaged relationship together? I think not. It is more a case of bridging the gap between forecast and budget outcome at the Treasury's request.
  Thirdly, only good taste, for which I am famed, prevents me from exploring the disgracefully insensitive performance-related salary awarded to the agency's director. Only continuing good taste prevents me from speculating on the part that that played in the panic July measures. Were the measures foisted on the director by the Treasury or the politicians, or were they the director's measures to protect her salary? What a disgraceful situation in which to place a public servant in such a delicate and sensitive area of public service work.
  Lastly, there is confusion over who is being targeted by the agency. When the measure was first raised by Baroness Thatcher, it was in the context of errant fathers, as she so quaintly phrased it. Yet the priority spelled out by the director to the Select Committee suggested that the hunt for errant fathers had been dropped in favour of those absent parents who had already agreed maintenance payments and who were easy to find because of their sense of responsibility.
  Days later, the Minister sought to assure the Select Committee that that was not the policy, but the leaked memo in The Guardian and the exigencies of the Treasury targets suggest that the easy target was being selected, above all for financial reasons, and that gave rise to the rush of letters from angry constituents complaining of that strategy.
  There are good reasons for believing that the entirely acceptable principle in the Act has been pragmatically corrupted for financial reasons, and that should end before it brings further anger from the targeted responsible parents.
  But even if that were to happen, a number of detailed matters require urgent action. A number are dealt with in the admirable Select Committee report published last week. I say "admirable", because it has many good suggestions, but it does not detail the maximum changes required; rather, it suggests the areas requiring urgent movement.

  1011
  The major matter requiring attention is the inflexibility of the calculations. The different amounts awarded by the courts were a major reason for the changed system. Because of that, flexibility seems to be regarded as something to be avoided at all times. The calculation for exempt income—that is, the amount that the absent parent requires for his or her essential expenses—is so rigid and limited that it will cause genuine problems in the short term and in the future.
  Interestingly enough, the Select Committee suggested that the £8 disregard might be increased to £40, and that would be a welcome step for many parents who have been hit by that inflexibility.
  The Select Committee lists a number of genuine items that are not taken into account—the cost of travel to work; the expense of visiting children or vice versa; the inescapable costs of caring for stepchildren; the parent-in-care element in the maintenance requirement; and fees for collection and assessment of child maintenance. Travel-to-work costs are important and can be a vital element in keeping the absent parent in work and so able to pay the benefit. That may be important, yet it is not permitted or seen as important enough to include in the formula.
  Each of the points that I have outlined can be argued away, but if they are not taken into account, they can jeopardise the ability of the absent parent to contribute to the upkeep of the child. By not allowing for expenses connected with the parent visiting the children or vice versa, the formula can damage or even destroy the continuing relationship between the child and absent parent.
  Then there is the human difficulty caused by hitting the absent parent with the result of the assessment without warning, without giving the parent any opportunity to adjust his finances and without any real regard for the second family. I should like to demonstrate this by giving some details of a family in Leeds. I have sent to the Prime Minister a copy of a letter that the family sent to me. It quietly spells out what, in the name of a good idea, but one administered soullessly and with no finesse, the Act is doing to ordinary, responsible citizens.
  The man's marriage broke up 11 years ago. He handed over the house and a capital sum. He has continued for the past 11 years, on request, to buy clothes and presents and to pay for holidays, as well as paying a sum agreed by the county court. All those facts have been ignored by the CSA. Three years ago, before the Act was a twinkle in the Minister's eye—before it was introduced in the House—the man extended his mortgage. It is now £189 per month. The CSA will recognise £60 a month.
  This August, before the assessment landed on the man's doormat, before he was even aware that he was being assessed, his partner, who works in her own right, agreed that, with her finances as they were, she could buy a car. They got a loan and she bought a car. When couple approached the CSA to say that they would no longer be able to afford the car, the CSA's advice was, "Sell it. The loan is not considered." The endowment mortgage will not be considered either. Among his essential housing costs which the CSA and the Act refuse to acknowledge is his
  1012
  community charge. It is not regarded as essential. If he does not pay, he will go to gaol, but to the CSA it is not an essential housing cost.
  From that one individual's case, similar to so many throughout the country, I hope that someone in government recognises what the Government are doing to hardworking individuals who simply do not understand what is hitting them and why. The calculations may be correct; they may flow from an acceptable wish to see more paid to the child; but does no one understand the need to give people time to adjust their spending so that they can cope? Can no one in government understand the bitterness which is potentially generated in the second family as a result of the assessment landing on the doormat?
  I sent the man's letter to the Prime Minister, asking specifically that he should not follow his usual and acceptable practice of passing the letter to the Department of Social Security for answer. I did not want a heartless defence of an insensitive Act. I felt that the Prime Minister should read the details himself and decide whether he could defend a machine that was getting dangerously out of control.
  I do not know about the Minister's experience, but my experience over a long life—too long for my happiness—is that people spend up to their income. On my Member of Parliament's salary, I cannot understand how someone survives on £15,000. When I was on £15,000, I could not understand how someone could survive on £8,000. People tend to spend to their income. In fact, nowadays people tend to spend beyond their income. Against the background of that natural fact of life, do not the Government understand what the effect is when the agency makes an assessment so devastating in its financial consequences? Do they not understand the need for some phasing in?
  Another change that would increase the chances of the Act being accepted is if the parent with care received a share of the extra money. Earlier, I gave the proportions that go to the state and parent. For every £11 that is gained from absent parents, £10 goes to the state and only £1 goes to the parent with care. Any money that is taken from the absent parent will only substitute for income support, and will probably lose that parent his or her passport to other benefits, such as school dinners. The Government could sensibly allow a financial disregard, which would improve resources for the child. The Australian system divides money raised from absent parents 50:50 between state and parent, and evidence suggests that carers and absent parents accept the arrangement in much better humour.
  The Government must stop the retrospective attack on clean-break settlements. There is no logical reason why they cannot be computed, so the Government should stop their attack on people who acted in good faith in the past. It must now be accepted that this highly regarded method of keeping the parent with care and children in the family home in familiar circumstances, among friends and familiar neighbours and, probably most important, permitting the child to continue at the same school with their friends while the family goes through one of the most traumatic things that can happen to a family has been destroyed by the working of the Act.
  The least that the Government can do, therefore, is overcome the lazy, unfeeling, bureaucratic opposition to making such settlements a financial factor for past awards.

  1013
  Even if they only draw a line before which clean-break settlements will be acceptable, at least they will keep good faith with people who have acted in extremely good faith.
  I have attempted to outline briefly the difficulties that the Act is causing. I emphasise the central point: what is at issue is not the provision of further financial assistance to children but the inflexibility of the method, the lack of notice and the Government' s refusal to share money so that children gain a direct benefit.
  I am grateful for your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for this opportunity, even at this terrible hour, to state the case for so many of my constituents who find themselves singled out for such heartless treatment. Their ordeal is being shared by many throughout the land. I welcome the opportunity of speaking quietly about their predicament. They—and, I fervently hope, someone in government—are listening.
  3.32 am
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on an excellent, well-researched speech. By raising the subject, he has done a tremendous service to men and families outside the House who are suffering from the Government's actions.
  I do not speak quietly: I make no bones about it—I have never had a quiet voice. The other week, a man and woman came into my surgery with two kids. They are trying to do their best, but the Government are ploughing them into an early grave. They both broke down in front of me. If the Minister had seen that, it would have broken his heart. He would have seen two young kids grasping at their parents's legs, not understanding what was happening but breaking their hearts crying. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) knows a little about the case because it is partly based in his constituency. I did not know what to do because I was heartbroken myself to see a family shrivel and nearly die before me because of the Child Support Agency and the way it hounds people for extra money. In this case, it is hounding a man who has been to court and agreed a payment and thought that that was the end of the matter. He has never run away from his commitment to his previous family. There was no question of his doing that, but he was at my surgery pleading for help.
  I have written to the Minister and his Department about many such cases, so they are not new to him. I shall not cite all the similar examples but I will refresh the Minister's memory. In one case, the payment was set at £57·51 per week—let us not forget the 51 p—and was due to be paid from 22 October 1993. The Government's attitude is hilarious, especially when one thinks of the previous Cabinet, with which I shall deal in a moment. The man's average wage ranged from £87 to £174. I have a list of similar cases. The Government have the list, as has the CSA.
  The case that I have cited is that of a man working overtime and doing all that he can to try to make a few bob while the CSA is trying to take £57 a week from him. It is crazy. The man came to see me, at his wits' end. He does not know whether to dive into the Tay or the Clyde or to stow away on a boat to another country—perhaps Yugoslavia, where he would probably receive more care and attention than the Government have given him.
  1014
  I remember when the previous Prime Minister said that we should pursue absent fathers. There is no question but that there was some sympathy for that view—no one wants to see a guy deserting his family without paying—but the harrying and hounding now taking place belongs to the Dark Ages.
  It is like the Spanish Inquisition and the hunting of witches who were burnt at the stake. It is unbelievable. When I think of the Cabinet, I remember a great song that we have in Scotland called "Donald, Where's your Trousers?" This lot do not know how to keep their trousers on, with the result that they spend too much time fornicating in bloody London. The country has debts of £50 billion because this mob cannot run the country and they are now going to hound everyone to get money, but they are chasing men who have made commitments through the courts.
  I deal now with the case that really gets to me. It concerns a man who wrote to me but who is not my constituent, although his father is. I do not want to say a great deal tonight, but I want the opportunity to read out a series of letters from one family. The Minister's people have the letter that I am about to read. It may not be the biggest heartbreaker that I have ever heard, but it goes straight to my heart and I hope that the Minister's head can fix it.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: My hon. Friend has hit on a very important point. Part of the problem is that the Minister does not see these letters, because as soon as they hit his desk he refers them to the executive agency and we cannot get a reply from him.
  Mr. Graham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he said, letters sent to the Prime Minister are passed on to someone else. I am beginning to wonder whether the Prime Minister has difficulty reading. Perhaps he should take a wee bit of time to read some of those letters; if he did, I am sure that some ministerial proposals would never reach Government level.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that our constituents' words sometimes speak more clearly than fancy words or jargon. The letter that I received reads:
  "I am writing from the above address which is my son's house, and on his behalf I would like to explain his problem.
  Basically it concerns the Child Support Agency. My son"—
  I shall not use the man's or the family's name —
  "has been driven to despair by the worry it"—
  the Child Support Agency—
  "is bringing."
  My constituent's father goes on:
  "Two years ago his wife walked out with another man taking the two children. Although she is the guilty party I realise this cuts no ice with the CSA.
  However only the youngest boy … is his child, so in consultation with the DSS it was decided he would pay £20 per week for the one son. About four months ago the DSS allowed him to cut this to £10 per week on the grounds of his financial situation".
  His rent is £46 and his community charge £9 a week. Once he has paid for his light, heating, food and travelling expenses, he is left with nothing out of his £150 take-home pay.
  The letter goes on:
  "Now the CSA will be hounding him for about £40 per week and they want £44 administration costs and £66 for arranging for the money to be paid to his wife, which at the moment costs him nothing as he has the children (two boys) for approximately three days every fortnight. It used to be weekly but he had to cut it down owing to cost. He hands the money over fortnightly and

  1015
  gets her to sign for it. Incidentally, my son is asthmatic and pays £9 to £10 a time for his medicine. He is also being taxed as a single man. Everyone wants blood!
  Sorry to be so long winded but this is a horror story.
  I myself am a 72-year-old pensioner".
  I shall not go into all the details, but the man goes on about how his son Dennis has changed his job to a firm in Port Glasgow to try to better himself financially. His father tries to help by running him to work, and so on. He works continental shifts. As the House will be able to imagine, it is almost impossible to co-ordinate buses and trains from Erskine to Port Glasgow. I represent the constituency and know the difficulties.
  The man lists a catalogue of problems that his son has, concluding:
  "The bottom line is if we give him our car or buy him a cheap banger he will not be able to run it because this CSA only allows rent, community charge and a small amount for food set against take home pay. Nothing is allowed for travelling, medicine, etc. In other words, it is persecuting reasonable fathers who are already paying what they can and also making them pay for the missing fathers who they do not aim to trace.
  The tragic result of this ill thought out and wicked scheme is that my son is seriously thinking that he may give up his work altogether and come to stay"—
  with his mum and dad, that is. The letter points out:
  "at least he would have food and bed and less worry. What a future. And the CSA would get nothing.
  I imagine there must be a lot of other people in this position but I am hoping that you can air this situation in the House of Commons."
  When I have finished my speech, I will pass the letter to the Minister so that he will know about the case.
  I replied to that letter and received another, which stated:
  "Thank you for your two letters pertaining to my son's problems. Obviously you are trying hard to help him—much appreciated although it seems likely to be falling on deaf ears at the CSA, sorry the KGB".
  The man has taken to calling it the KGB. The letter continues:
  "Time is running out for Dennis, they want £41·50 weekly from him, so leaving him £11·50 a week to feed himself and buy essentials for the house.
  As a last resort, he will pack in his job and condemn himself to years on the dole …"
  I received a letter from the man's son, and it is heart breaking. I shall pass those letters to the Minister.
  This situation is arising because of the Government's mismanagement of the economy. They are driving folk to an early grave. Men who have made a commitment in court are easy targets and the attitude is, "Let's chase them." The Government must stop this hounding and harrowing and must direct the CSA to do its job properly. It must not take the easy option of trying to take £531 million from such people. If the Government continue in this way, it will cost much more.
  What will happen if these folk go unemployed or go underground? Who will pick up the tab if that happens? It will be the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Once again, this bankrupt Government's policies will drive us into insane situations. These men and women are not hiding from the system: they have been exposed to it and it is burying them. The Minister must listen to us when we raise these cases and give us a reply that will give these folk some hope that they can live from day to day without thinking of putting their head in an oven.
  If the Government do not listen, they will reap the bitter harvest of many parents abandoning all hope. I do not think
  1016
  that the Government's purpose was to see men and women abandoning hope and children denied loving parents, even though those parents are separated. Surely that is not what the agency is about.
  3.47 am
  Mr. Tim Devlin: On Saturday, I conducted one of the largest surgeries that I can remember since becoming a Member of Parliament. When I turned up with my list of people whom I had to see, I was surprised to find that fully one third of them would complain about the Child Support Agency. All those people were already paying maintenance and were in respectable occupations. They were police officers, special constables, local government officers and skilled workers in local industries —people who had a stake in society and who were working hard and doing their best to make ends meet. On the figures that they gave, they seemed to be faced with highly unreasonable demands from the CSA.
  When I voted for the Child Support Act 1991, it was on the basis that we would pursue the three quarters of fathers who make no contribution whatever to the welfare of their children. I have seen the figures in the brief, but it appears that the agency is first going after those who made a contribution or are making continuing contributions. The agency is not making a distinction between cases in which a court has made a settlement of a one-off payment of equity in a house or the full value of a house or a lump sum, pension arrangement or contribution from bonuses, clothing and so on, and other types of case.
  We are seeing the implementation of a purely mechanistic approach to the problem of obtaining maintenance payments from fathers. The automaticity of the mechanism is causing great concern. Some women are seriously thinking of leaving their husbands because they had a son or daughter in a previous marriage, and their children are now being prejudiced by the possible outcome of an assessment given over the telephone by a junior official in the Child Support Agency. That official may show absolutely no sympathy for the way in which current arrangements have been fixed and may say that no transitional arrangements are possible.
  As the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) said, there are no transitional arrangements or allowances to help people to readjust to their circumstances. Worse, people may even be asked to contribute a lump sum in back payments from a date specified by the agency, without any reference to those concerned.
  When I had seen the eight or nine people who came to see me about that problem last Saturday, I did not realise that I would have an opportunity to raise the matter in the House so soon. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that all the people whom I saw on Saturday professed—I believe them—to be Conservative voters. They are all people who had previously seen our party as the party which would track down the feckless and chase up the people who make no contribution. Yet they now find themselves in the peculiar position of being faced with bills that they simply cannot pay.
  The formula being applied does not take account of everyday payments that we all have to make, such as council tax, telephone bills, bills for lighting and heating, and other fixed costs that we all normally have to pick up in our everyday lives. The only payments taken into account are mortgage payments. Of course, many people

  1017
  have taken on mortgages, thinking themselves safe in the knowledge that, having settled a one-off arrangement with their first wives, they no longer have to make a greater contribution than that fixed by the court. I was interested to hear that when one of the first cases went back to the court recently, the court, which has a much great discretion than Child Support Agency officials, refixed the original maintenance payments. That must have been possible because the court had the inherent ability to be much more flexible and to take into account the individual case. I do not say that the agency is therefore a bad thing; I believe that it is a good thing, and should be supported. But it needs to be more flexibile and to take more account of individual circumstances. That is not what it is doing at the moment.
  Another aspect that we should consider is the idea of a transitional arrangement to help people to readjust. Allied to that is the £44 administration cost that one has to pay when first assessed. If the assessment is wrong and one wants to be reassessed, one has to pay another £44; if one's circumstances change again and one needs to be reassessed again, one has to pay another—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): No.
  Mr. Devlin: That is what I have been told is being said to fathers in my constituency by the agency officials. If that is not true, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about the subject, would put that fact on the record so that I can direct agency officials to his answer as a piece of guidance.
  Mr. Graham: I can help the hon. Gentleman there. I have a list of all the stuff that was sent out that proves that he is right and that people do have to pay the money.
  Mr. Devlin: That is what I am told and that certainly seemed to be what was happening to the nine or so people whom I saw on Saturday.
  Finally, I shall draw the attention of the House to the mechanism for cutting the benefit of mothers who refuse to name the father of their child, if they know who the father is. Several people have told me that here have been cases in which the father refunds the cut—it is about £8 a week —to the mother on the understanding that she will not name him. I do not know what can be done to tackle that practice, but I consider it to be a straightforward social security fraud, on which we must crack down. I do not want the Child Support Agency to have to behave like the Spanish inquisition, or any of the other organisations that have been cited, but it is important that we gain some contribution from fathers who desert their children or who, for one reason or another, are separated from them.
  That people should make some contribution for their children is a question of individual responsibility. An urgent review of the work of the agency should be carried out to ensure that greater flexibility is shown in individual circumstances, so that an equitable solution is arrived at in each case.
  3.54 am
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: I congratulate all the hon. Members who have spoken in this important debate. They have all said much the same thing and I do not apologise for the fact that I will do the same.
  1018
  We have all identified the problems that have been revealed to us daily at our surgeries, constituency offices and in messages sent to the House.
  In common with those who have spoken, I nail my colours to the mast in support of the good principle behind the Child Support Agency. If the 1991 Act was designed to make parents who have separated take joint responsibility for their children, it has singularly failed in that objective. More and more people have reached the conclusion that that is not the purpose of the Act. They believe that it is Treasury driven.
  The Child Support Agency is not closing the gap between separated families but widening the gulf between them. It is common for people to tell hon. Members that, prior to the establishment of the agency, they had enjoyed quite amicable relations with their estranged partners. Now those estranged partners are at each other's throats and are contemplating all sorts of legal actions against one and another—all because of that agency.
  I wrote to the Minister about the policy behind the Child Support Agency. I resent the fact that he referred my letter to a paid official of an executive agency, who then wrote to tell me about that policy. I knew what that policy was when I wrote to the Minister in the first place. I wanted to get the Minister to listen and to change it. When I intervened earlier, I said that I was worried that letters that hit the Minister's desk were transferred immediately to those in the executive agency. If that is not the case, I should like the Minister to reply to a specific question. How do I get to him? How do I get a constituency case to him, so that he intervenes rather than merely refers it to the chief executive of the agency?
  I could highlight many cases that reveal the problems caused by the Child Support Agency, but I will quote just two that happen to spring to mind. A consultant who lives near me, and who works in a hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), has married for the second time. He and his second wife have reasonably good incomes. They had planned to have a second family, but he now finds that his first wife, who had never made contact with the agency, is now challenging the support that he provides. That support is the subject of an assessment. That consultant, who uses his great expertise and skills in a hospital, has told me that if he took into account housing benefit and all the other benefits to which he might be entitled were he out of work, he might be marginally better off it he gave up the ghost. I will tell the House why in a moment.
  The second case concerns a man whom I happen to have known for a long time. He and his wife became estranged because his wife suffers from an alcohol-related problem, which she is trying to overcome. When they separated, his wife moved into a home that she had inherited from a relative, so it was paid for. The husband paid the mortgage and has discharged, or is discharging, all the other debts. Now, he is worrying whether, by paying so much money to his wife, he is giving her the most appropriate support, given her alcohol problem. That is also the advice that he is getting from the clinic that she attends. I know that such cases are hard to regulate, and that is why all hon. Members have spoken of the need for flexibility and a bit of common sense.
  I am already spoken of my concern about the referrals of our letters to the executive agency. If the Minister saw the volume of cases that come across all our desks—I

  1019
  assume that it is all 651 desks—he would see the common thread of that demand for flexibility. We could all quote dozens of agencies, all mirror images of each other, and all the tales of misery and woe. This should not be overstated or said glibly, but, in letters and face to face, people tell us that they have never been so distraught and despondent and they feel like giving up jobs. They even talk about suicide. The reason for all this misery is not financial but the children, and the emotional link with them.
  All hon. Members who have spoken have referred to those who are being chased. I heard the Minister say on television some weeks ago—he may have changed his view now, and I hope that he has—that there was no truth in the allegation that the CSA was chasing those most easily chased. I should like an answer on that because it seems that those most easily fingered are the ones getting fingered. That is fairly common; it is not unique to the CSA. For example, I know that the only performance measurement for the new PACT teams in the Department of Employment, which assist in the employment of disabled people, is volume of cases. Therefore, they tend to go for cases that are most easily chased. The same principle is being applied here.
  There are several common threads, of which the first is inflexibility. Property and discharged debts are not taken into account when an assessment is made. The second problem is access, when estranged couples live many miles apart. If this policy is about building family ties and making parents take responsibility for their children, why deny fathers or mothers the money that it takes to give them access to children who live many miles away? That is happening in many cases.
  Another factor that has not been taken into account is second families. Many people who have come to my surgery have said that they cannot provide properly for their second families. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) made a valid point for his constituency, although not for mine, when he said that the people coming to him are Conservative voters. If I were sitting in the Minister's position, I would think that it was bad politics to pursue the policy in that way, because the people whom he is most likely to damage are those who are most likely to support him. Not only is the whole scheme fundamentally flawed but the Minister is targeting his own people. Let me assure him that they are fast moving over to our side of the argument.
  We have all pleaded not for the principle to be done away with but for an amendment to the Act to make it work more sensibly. The Government have taken a very good principle and discredited it.
  4.4 am
  Mr. Adam Ingram: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on obtaining this debate. I also congratulate him on his appointment to the Public Accounts Committee. His speech tonight showed why he was given that appointment and I am sure that he will prove to be a valuable member of the Committee.
  We cannot doubt the importance of the issue raised by my hon. Friend. It is unlikely that any hon. Member—even the Prime Minister—has not received representations on the subject. It is probable that all those representations
  1020
  have been critical of the Child Support Act, and, in opening the debate, my hon. Friend articulated those criticisms accurately.
  In his inimitable way, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) spelt out what he knew to be happening to his constituents, from his experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) re-emphasised many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. I am almost inclined to call the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) an hon. Friend tonight, but if I were to go through the litany of all the Conservative Members who have criticised the Act, we should be short of time—even with an hour and a half. I shall confine myself to saying that all the Back-Bench contributions have restated many of the trenchant criticisms made of the legislation since its enactment.
  I am sure that the nation will not be listening now, in the wee small hours; however, what has been said in the debate so far—and, more important, what the Minister will say later—will be scrutinised carefully by all the families and individuals who have been adversely affected by the Act. We must all remember the people—many of them on low incomes, with high outgoings—who have been asked to pay under the provisions of the Act.
  As I have said, hon. Members have made trenchant criticisms of the Act and it has been subject to many detailed criticisms in the House and elsewhere. No one is arguing that its underlying principles are unsound. No one is arguing that there is no need for absent parents—to use the terminology used by the agency—to contribute to the upkeep of their children. No one is arguing that those absent parents should be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities.
  What is being said—the Government appear not to be listening—is that the application of the Child Support Act is too inflexible and rigid. It does not take proper account of the impact of the high assessments on absent parents, many of whom care deeply about the children from whom they are separated. Perhaps we could change the terminology to "separated parents" rather than "absent parents"—the current language deeply hurts many parents who contribute to families with whom they are no longer involved. The term "absent parent" is a form of criticism which is not justified.
  During Social Security questions on 6 December, the Under-Secretary of State, replying to one of his hon. Friends—incidentally another who was critical of the Act —said:
  "Today has been a good day for the Child Support Agency".
  —[Official Report, 6 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 12.]
  Clearly, he thought that the agency had been given an early Christmas present. I ask him, in his reply, to elaborate on what he meant by that statement. Why was 6 December a good day for the Child Support Agency?
  One interpretation placed on his statement was that he was overjoyed by the conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee on Social Security and that somehow he had been let off the hook. Was he really implying that nothing substantial needed to be done to amend the working of the Act? If that is what he was saying, it will be a great disappointment to his hon. Friends who are looking for quick action from the Government.
  I am sure that the many thousands of complainants who have been subjected to the workings of the Act will not share his joy, either on 6 December or subsequently. They

  1021
  will not claim that it was a good day for them. It will not do for the Minister to seek to sweep away the many criticisms of the Act in such a flippant and complacent way.
  It is interesting to note that in a written answer, also on 6 December, the Minister said:
  "The Child Support Agency is still very new, but it has made a determined start on its important task of ensuring that more children receive more maintenance, more reliably."—[Official Report, 6 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 108.]
  I am sure that everyone agrees that the agency has made a determined start. If it had not made such a determined start, I do not think that the debate would be taking place. Is the Minister really claiming that more children receive more maintenance, more reliably, because of the Act? Where is the evidence for that? Surely it would have been more honest for the Minister to say that it will be the Treasury that will receive more money more quickly, not the children.
  Mention has been made of the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee. Time does not permit me to go into the details of those recommendations. I have no doubt that the House will return to that report at a later stage. The debate will not go away after tonight. The Committee's recommendations are to be welcomed. They are a useful beginning on which to base subsequent amendments to the Act. I do not think that I will offend my hon. Friends who served on the Committee if I say that although the report is a useful beginning, it does not go far enough. More needs to be done if we are to bring about meaningful and acceptable changes to the legislation. What must be recognised is that the responsibility for change lies with the Government, not the Select Committee. It will not do for the Government to pick up and implement only the less radical options in the Select Committee report. They must look beyond the report.
  If the Minister really believes that children will receive more maintenance, more reliably, he must change the Act to introduce a disregard for parents with care so that the children of parents on income support receive some of the cash from the increased maintenance obtained from the separated parent.
  Do the Government mean to take account of the fundamental criticisms that have been made of the Act on both sides of the House about, for example the need for transitional payment arrangements and clean break settlements? I want to draw the attention of the House to the Government's Green Paper on the new divorce procedures. Paragraph 7.31, under the heading "How would the Child Support Agency and mediation fit together?" says:
  "The Child Support Act will considerably simplify the calculation of child maintenance because the same formula for assessment is used in all cases. The formula takes account of each parent's income and essential outgoings at the time of assessment and, because it deals with the financial consequences of any property transfer, takes account of the practical outcome of 'clean break' settlements."
  I am not sure that the Government know what is going on. One document says that clean break settlements are taken into account, whereas the Minister welcomed the fact that the Select Committee said that an easy solution could not be found to clean break settlements. Will the Minister explain that contradiction?
  I was going through a list of the fundamental criticisms that have been made of the Act. Other areas that hon. Members have asked to be taken into account, on the basis of representations from constituents, include travel to work
  1022
  costs, travel for access to children costs, costs of looking after children during holidays and at weekends and, at this time of the year, the additional cost of Christmas and presents for the children.
  If the Government are serious about taking those issues on board, they must build into the assessment process a more flexible approach by introducing a new system that allows discretion to review decisions by officers and, within a reformed appeals system, to grant a departure from the standard financial formula. I am sure that the Minister is only too well aware that the Child Support Agency has been re-christened the "Treasury Support Agency". That phrase will continue to haunt him and the Government until something substantial is done about it.
  As we are at Christmas time, when financial pressures are at their greatest on all families, the best Christmas present that the Minister can give to children in families affected by the Act is a commitment to their parents to undertake serious consideration of the points so eloquently argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. Nothing less will do.
  4.15 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I begin by echoing the congratulations of all Members who have spoken to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on securing this debate and I thank him for the way in which he put his points. No lack of concern was shown by him or by any of the hon. Members who have spoken, and I appreciate how they have all put their cases in a variety of different styles, reflecting the worries that they have experienced. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) for his contribution.
  All hon. Members have made a number of valuable comments, to which I shall come shortly. First, I will say a few words about some of the fundamental principles of the scheme, to which everyone who has spoken in the debate has signed up, although what they have said has sometimes belied that. Those principles also have the unequivocal support of the Select Committee on Social Security. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) is right. The day in question was devoted to social security questions; it was also the day of the report's publication. The significance of that was simply that a number of the criticisms directed at the Child Support Agency, which have been specifically raised again tonight, were dealt with by the Select Committee. I note what the hon. Gentleman said, but, because the Select Committee did not back some of those criticisms, he seems to want to pick and choose what the Select Committee said and did. I shall deal with all the Select Committee's criticisms and recommendations. I accept what it said it terms of showing us some of the directions in which it would like to go in the future, but some specific points of principle must then be carried through into action and legislation to see the consequences, to which the Committee also referred.
  Some of the issues mentioned tonight and the criticisms made outside do not take that step. They pay lip service to the principles, but where the principles bite it is a different matter. That is a hard issue and I shall try to deal with its nub as best I can.
  The main aim of the Child Support Agency is to obtain more maintenance more reliably for more children and improve on a discretionary court-based system that had

  1023
  failed to stem a decline in the payment of maintenance. The scheme is designed to ensure that, where they can afford to do so, parents take responsibility for maintaining their own children. It is not right that taxpayers, many of whom are bringing up children of their own, should be asked to foot the bill.
  The principle, which is not new, was strongly endorsed by the Select Committee, and widely welcomed by Members of all parties and by the relevant lobby groups when the child support proposals were first discussed in 1990. The need for a change from the previous system was adequately illustrated by the fact that, before 1991, fewer than one third of lone parents received maintenance from the absent parent. By 1997, our aim is to have increased that proportion to half.
  That is how more children will receive more maintenance, more reliably. Research shows that many lone parents currently receiving income support want to enter employment.
  Mr. Ingram: How many more children will receive how much more money?
  Mr. Burt: We estimate that maintenance was not previously paid in 50 per cent. of current CSA cases. We believe that proportion will be higher by the end of the year —roughly 600,000 of the 1 million cases that the agency will have taken on. That is quite an improvement.
  Mr. Alun Michael: For the Treasury?
  Mr. Burt: I will deal with the Treasury in a moment.
  Recently, the CSA received much coverage in the press, as it did in the business of the House. Much of the media coverage was less than even handed, with the majority of commentators concentrating on the plight of absent parents. Little attention is paid to the substantial benefits for children derived from regular maintenance payments. I am grateful to the Social Security Select Committee for highlighting that particular point.
  We always knew, and made no secret of the fact, that the new scheme was expected to increase the amount of maintenance paid by absent parents. That was made clear in the White Paper, in debates on the Child Support Act 1991 and regulations and on numerous other occasions —and that point was endorsed by the Select Committee, which concluded that it is right for the Government to increase the level of financial support paid in respect of children.
  We realised that absent parents would express concern about the amounts that they would be required to pay—and we are seeing that concern as the agency's assessments begin to take effect. I emphasise, however, that although absent parents are asked to pay more, many parents with care are now receiving realistic amounts of maintenance for the first time.
  A point often overlooked is that many of those absent parents, albeit often unknowingly, made settlements that involved any maintenance that they paid being supplemented by the taxpayer. It is clearly desirable that those absent parents who can afford to do so should make a more realistic contribution towards the cost of maintaining their children and relieve the taxpayer of an unnecessary burden. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members support that
  1024
  view. It is only to be expected that some absent parents who in the past paid little or no child maintenance will not welcome being made to pay more.
  The amount of maintenance is determined by a formula that was extensively discussed inside and outside Parliament and put into legislation. The purpose of the standard formula is to help eradicate many of the inconsistencies that prevailed under the discretionary court system. I am pleased that the Select Committee remains convinced that a formula-based approach that will produce consistent results is the right one.
  An important point invariably overlooked by the media is that the formula ensures that both parents, where they can afford to do so, contribute to the maintenance of their child and that both parents are subject to the formula calculation, if they have sufficient income. To that end, the formula is redressing the balance between the relative incomes of parents with care and absent parents.
  Incidentally, the terminology is not meant to be in any way critical. It has been around for five years and merely differentiates between the parent with physical care of the child the majority of the time and the parent who is physically absent the majority of the time. The word "absent" does not mean errant and should not be taken to mean that.
  All too often in the past, parents with care lived. at benefit levels while absent parents were able to remain comparatively better off. It is significant that more than 96 per cent. of cases currently on the agency's books concern parents with care and children with benefit. Not one hon. Member who spoke tonight mentioned that in almost every absent parent case cited it is highly likely that the parent with care is on benefit. It is worth emphasising that the majority of absent parents will be left with 70 to 85 per cent. of their net income after paying maintenance, and those with low incomes will usually be left with an even higher percentage.
  I am glad to say that we are now seeing some sections of the media beginning to explore the other side of the equation and present a more balanced picture so that the public can see some of the true benefits to children that are being derived from the scheme. I hope that others will follow suit.
  I recognise that, despite support for the principle, people have genuine concerns about how the detail of the scheme has affected them. I have undertaken to examine those concerns—as have my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—and I am closely examining the specific recommendations of the Select Committee. However, I share the Committee's concerns and in my deliberations I shall be weighing carefully the potential gains to absent parents against any adverse effects on parents with care. I will not delay in my considerations. I am treating the matter with urgency, but I will not allow myself to be railroaded into hasty decisions.
  I shall deal with some of the specific issues that have been raised and start at the heart of the matter. It is important that I refer to the Select Committee's work. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Committee's report deal with basic issues. I shall read from the report because the issues are important. The report states:
  "In our previous reports we stated our belief that the system of maintenance for children was long overdue for improvement. We continue to take the view that it is right that parents of children should provide realistic financial support for their children wherever possible, and we also consider it right that the

  1025
  costs to the taxpayer, which may be caused when families split leaving one partner to bring up children on a low income, should be reduced where possible."
  That is the view, not of the Government, but of the Select Committee. It recognised the taxpayer's position. The report continued:
  "The aim of the Child Support Act was to increase the level of child maintenance paid by parents, and it is to a degree inevitable that there will be protests from those who are asked to contribute more. While we place on record our immediate concerns about certain aspects of the operation of the new child support arrangements in this report, it is notable that a very large group has been left almost unheard in the present debate"—
  and in tonight's. The report continued:
  "A small proportion of the letters we received came from women who supported the objectives of the Act. One woman wrote:
  'As a single mother who receives no maintenance from the father of her child I was pleased and relieved when the Child Support Agency was set up. I am at present living on Income Support after having to give up work when my son was born because I could not afford child care. I thought the CSA would ensure that I received enough maintenance to enable me to afford the child care I need for my pre-school child so that I could return to work'.
  Another woman asked us not to be unduly influenced by the representations of one group:
  'Please don't allow the well-orchestrated babble of complaints from aggrieved men to persuade you that the parent who leaves his (or her) children is entitled to turn his (or her) back on them.'.
  We have kept these views in mind during our short inquiry."
  We have talked at length about real people and I accept that hon. Members have made their points firmly and raised real cases, but there is another side to the coin to which they have rarely turned their minds tonight. The members of the Select Committee did not turn their minds from that side of the argument, and the Government have not done so either.
  Mr. Mudie: Does the Minister agree that the Select Committee positively recommended changes to everything but the clean-break settlement? Despite the fact that the Minister has plucked those two paragraphs from the report, the Select Committee—with the exception of one Labour Member—voted solidly for changes in everything other than the clean-break settlement.
  Mr. Burt: I shall come to that, and I have plucked out more paragraphs from the report. The Select Committee certainly made recommendations that I have undertaken to consider. However, the Select Committee has referred not to fundamental issues of principle, but to amendments to the basic structure of the Act that they supported. I am not certain that it necessarily follows from everything that hon. Members have said tonight that they understand how the principles apply and the fact that they will cause some degree of upset as they begin to work.
  I have a quote from a woman who was not interviewed for the "World in Action" programme, but who put her case well to a journalist from The Sunday Times. She said:
  "In the past, when I was working and desperate for money, the courts used to listen to the fathers' excuses about why they couldn't afford to pay, and women got a pittance. The CSA seems like a good thing, and I just wish it had been there for me."
  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) is laughing. I did not laugh at the stories told by Labour Members tonight about the real concerns of some of their constituents. I do not expect them to laugh when they hear about the other side of the coin, which is all too rarely put. We must not be nostalgic for what the court system was—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central asks me to reveal a particular name. I
  1026
  will not do so, but if he looks at The Sunday Times of 21 November he will see the article written by Liz Lightfoot about the "World in Action" programme in which she gives names.
  Hon. Members tonight again raised the question of targeting payers. I have to say that it is not correct to allege that the agency is concentrating on absent parents who are already paying maintenance, to the exclusion of others. We have always made it clear that all types of case will be dealt with. In fact, in its first year the agency will have devoted considerable effort to cases where little or no maintenance has been paid in the past.
  The agency has also had considerable early success in finding missing absent parents—those parents who have shirked their responsibilities and, in many cases, disappeared without trace. In the cases completed so far, there is a 90 per cent. success record in tracing those difficult cases which in the past would simply have disappeared. Again, that fact is not given much prominence.
  This year the agency expects to deal with just over 1 million cases, of which almost 640,000 will involve absent parents who do not currently pay any maintenance. It is so important to get the balance right. I recognise the concern about the take-on of cases where people are already paying. However, other cases are being taken on and I hope that hon. Members recognise that.
  The complaint was made again tonight that the CSA benefits only the Treasury. I see nothing wrong with the allegation that a sizeable proportion of the maintenance will relieve the burden on the taxpayer. The question that we should ask is not whether we should have introduced an Act to save the taxpayer money, but whether the taxpayer should have been involved in the first place. Where the absent parent can afford to pay, the answer must be no.
  That principle was strongly endorsed in the report of the Social Security Select Committee, which reaffirmed that one of the main driving forces behind the reform of the child maintenance system was to return financial responsibility for children from the social security system to absent parents. Again, if we believe in the principle, we have to believe in the action that will put the principle into practice. I am not entirely certain that the House is, as yet, prepared to accept that.
  I quote again from the Select Committee report. Paragraph 18 states:
  "A large part of the public debate about the Child Support Agency has centred on the accusation that it was picking unfairly on 'soft targets', that is, those absent parents who were already making maintenance payments. Behind this accusation has been an allegation that the Agency's work is governed by the requirement to make substantial savings in the social security budget. We believe this objective to be an important one. The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents."
  The committee read the letters sent to it and understood the feelings behind them, but it still backed the principle that this House previously endorsed—that the taxpayer has an interest and that it is legitimate for the agency to reflect that and to do something about it. I believe that hon. Members should do the same.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, East referred to the closing the gap initiative. It was always expected that there would be a gradual build-up in performance as the agency is a new organisation operating new legislation and procedures with new staff. We were also aware that the level of

  1027
  information needed before an assessment could be completed meant that there would be a period of time between the issue of an application form and the completion of an assessment. Nevertheless, at the end of June the agency concluded that the numbers of cases being cleared were relatively low and inconsistent with the planned six to 12 weeks clearance time for straightforward cases. It therefore decided to use its locally based staff to deal with the early stages of the processing of applications where the parent with care was claiming or receiving income support.
  That exercise, the transfer of work between agency centres and the field, with the resulting amendments to procedures, became known as the closing the gap project. The project was also charged with considering any procedural simplifications for the agency which would speed up the processing of cases. It should be remembered that the speeding up of the process enables the parent caring for the child to receive money earlier.
  The closing the gap project has made a big impact on agency performance. In the four months to the end of October, the agency's productivity increased significantly as a result of that initiative. In the second quarter of the financial year, by comparison with the first, agency staff issued two and a half times as many application forms and more than three times as many maintenance inquiry forms to absent parents and completed eight times as many assessments.
  The oft-quoted document that the hon. Gentleman mentioned refers to the view of one member of staff who was clearly unprepared for major change. The great majority of the agency's staff welcomed the changes brought about by the closing the gap project. They had always wanted to be more involved in the basic processing,
  1028
  and the project gave them the opportunity. They have made a significant contribution to the big increase in productivity that has been achieved as a result of the initiative.
  I would need an hour to say all that I have to say, but, alas, I do not have that amount of time. A common concern raised by hon. Members tonight has been raised by others, including the Select Committee, and that relates to the assessment formula and how it takes account of specific expenses, such as existing debts or the cost of travel to work and contact with children. We believe that the formula makes provision for essential living expenses and, additionally, absent parents are left with a significant proportion of their net income after paying maintenance.
  We do not think it right to allow for specific expenses in the formula, as that gives them precedence over the basic needs of the children. The Select Committee correctly realised that to make provision for a shopping list of essential expenses would push child maintenance further and further down the priority order. The ultimate result would be a return to the unrealistically low sums that were common under the previous system.
  I recognise that the Select Committee, in endorsing the principles behind the agency, made recommendations on phasing and on trying to ensure that protected income would be larger to cover some of the issues raised by hon. Members tonight. We have those matters very much in mind. I cannot tell the House tonight what conclusion we have come to, but I hope that some of the things that I have said tonight will be helpful.
  I recognise the pain that hon. Members experience when they speak to their constituents. I have the same experience with my own constituents. We will consider carefully what is to be done. We should not underestimate the difficulties of the previous system, the decline in the payment of maintenance and the failure to provide decent maintenance for many children—
  In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  4.37 am
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful for this opportunity to debate the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), who have joined me to speak in the debate, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who has chosen to reply to the debate in person at this rather unearthly hour.
  The Government have embarked on a remarkable package of reforms to the criminal justice system. One might even describe it as the crime management system. The Home Secretary's 27-point plan for the criminal justice system will make an enormous difference and involve a great deal of legislation.
  At the same time, we have two different sets of proposals for the police, one stemming from the Sheehy report, which is in modified form, and one coming in the police White Paper, and measures that apply to the relationship between the public and the forces of law and order, ranging from improvements to the special constabulary through to greater emphasis on neighbourhood watch schemes and witness protection schemes.
  Curiously, the one part of the crime management system that has been almost entirely exempted from that process is the CPS. The one major change that it has undergone has been a reduction in the number of areas, the reasons for which are not immediately obvious.
  If just one link in a chain is left largely unchanged when the others are being greatly altered, it would be reasonable to suppose that that one link was the strongest link. In fact, I shall argue tonight that it is by far and away the weakest link. I do not want to dwell on the various personal attacks that have been made on the Director of Public Prosecutions or, indeed, on the wider attacks that have been made from time to time on individual Crown prosecutors. They form no part of my case. I want to focus on the facts.
  Since the establishment of the CPS in 1985, crime of all types has risen dramatically, according to the official figures. The British crime survey, which is based on opinion polling, suggests that the numbers of offences in certain categories of crime against property, including burglary and offences involving motor cars, have risen slightly faster than the official figures suggest. The numbers in other categories have risen less quickly.
  Over the seven years from 1985 to 1992, the police have succeeded in clearing up more offences. The number of notifiable offences cleared up has risen from 1·1 million to 1·39 million—an increase of one quarter—yet the number of convictions for indictable offences has fallen by 9 per cent., from 362,000 to 339,000. At the same time, the success rate in prosecutions for indictable offences has fallen from 96 per cent. in the last year before the CPS came into operation to just over 90 per cent. last year. That is according not to the CPS figures but to the figures from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, which have a more consistent basis. They are figures provided by the Library, based on the Government's figures.
  Those figures, which are poor in themselves, understate the grave deterioration in the prosecution service. In that period, plea bargaining has steadily extended so that many prosecutions have been secured at the price of accepting a
  1030
  lower charge. Research by several neutral bodies has confirmed at the qualitative level that the figures correctly show a marked deterioration in the service. I shall mention just two bodies. In 1987, just after the CPS came into operation, the National Audit Office did a survey of, among others, judges, magistrates and clerks to justices of the peace. That survey suggested that far more people thought that the service had got worse than thought that it had got better.
  Just two years ago, Home Affairs Select Commmittee investigations found quote after quote from almost every possible agency. People felt that the CPS was inferior to the old system in which the police were in charge of prosecutions. Quotes were obtained from magistrates, barristers and policemen. The chairman of the Magistrates Association said that he
  "could not think of a single good thing"
  that had been done for justice as a result of the introduction of the CPS. At the same time, costs have spiralled. The Comptroller and Auditor General's review of the Crown Prosecution Service in 1989 said:
  "In August 1986, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office attempted to compare the cost of the CPS with the cost of the previous regime. They estimated broadly that the old arrangements would have cost £70 million for 1987–88 as against estimated expenditure of £110 million for the Service. But they accepted that this might not take full account of the costs of accommodation and general admistration, and concluded that the difference in costs was due mainly to the increase in staff numbers. The actual cost of the Service in 1987–88 was £134 million."
  By 1991–92—remember that this is a period of extremely low inflation—while the service had continued to deteriorate, total expenditure had reached £226·15 million. Even if one makes the generous assumption that the whole of the initial increase was due to accounting changes for accommodation and so on, the service's costs had doubled. It did not stop there. Costs have continued to rise sharply.
  In the current year alone, in my county of Kent, new arrangements for the handling of paperwork will cost an extra £750,000 this year, with a continuing charge of £500,000 a year for paperwork that was wholly unnecessary before the CPS came into being. Delays in major criminal cases result in witnesses no longer being able to recall what happened, reducing the chances of a successful prosecution being made; equally, there are delays at the bottom end of the scale. I have spent much time talking to my local police. Indeed, I was out in a police car all night last month.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Was the hon. Gentleman in the cells?
  Mr. Brazier: I was a voluntary visitor to the cells. Policemen have told me time and again that, in the past, they could arrest someone for committing a minor offence —for example, shoplifting—and, because the paperwork involved was minimal, if there was no queue in the magistrates court a case could sometimes be completely cleared through to sentence within 24 hours. Simply getting the file prepared and processed by the CPS takes a minimum of a fortnight, with all the costs that that entails.
  The result is demoralisation of policemen, who see cases being dropped, experience delays and increasing costs and spend hour after hour with earphones on their

  1031
  heads summarising cases for the CPS. That would not be necessary if they were prosecuting cases themselves and it would be far less bureaucratic.
  I do not want to quote the wretched forms that are pouring increasingly out of the DPP's office, imposing increasing burdens on the police force. The CPS is vastly more expensive than the previous arrangements. Long delays and a huge increase in paperwork are involved—an increase that the PA study into police paperwork was not allowed to consider. Its terms of reference were specifically confined to areas under the control of the police, although it was able to recommend better co-ordination and regular reviews of the relationship between the police and the CPS. Policemen tell me that the CPS is the biggest single factor accounting for the fall in morale among policemen, not only in my area but in others.
  I am not suggesting that we need improved practice in the CPS, although obvious examples of where improvements need to be made can be given. Policemen in my constituency are full of praise for local Crown prosecutors. In the past six months, only two cases that local police would have liked to proceed with were dropped, and both were relatively minor. The point that the police make to me again and again is that the system is profoundly wrong and that where Crown prosecutors are doing a good job they are doing it in spite of the system, not because of it.
  The system has no objectives to encourage Crown prosecutors to take up difficult cases where they believe defendants to be guilty but where there is a real chance of losing. The pursuit of such cases is important not only to victims but to the public's perception of justice being done. The system does not have any penalty for dropping such cases. Indeed, it rewards the cautious Crown prosecutor because he appears to get a better result by dodging the more difficult cases. That problem arises under any system in which there is divided responsibility, as there is in the present system. The police complain about the CPS and the CPS complain about the police. It is not clear who is responsible if a case is not successful.
  There is another aspect that is undervalued and missed —I say that with the greatest respect to the majority of hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment, who are lawyers. Of the intelligent and articulate complaints made against the CPS, the one that is missed is the damage that the service is doing to the individual policeman by removing the vital opportunity for training as a witness which the prosecution of minor cases provided for young policemen.
  In the old days, policemen who prosecuted in shoplifting cases gained experience in the court room by being cross-examined in difficult circumstances. I am now told that, all too often, when policemen without that experience are witnesses in major criminal cases in the Crown court, they are unable to make a convincing case compared with their peers of 10 years ago.
  In practice, policemen are not released back on the beat. As there is no longer a policeman present to prosecute each case, magistrates have had to insist that one is present as a security guard, so we are paying twice—once for the chap who is prosecuting and once for the policeman merely providing security in the court. From a management angle —for my sins, I was a management consultant—the point runs even deeper. If a policeman has had experience of having to frame a case before magistrates, that in itself will
  1032
  have knock-on effects on his practice out there, at the sharp end. By knowing exactly how one has to present a case and what arguments will or will not cut any ice in court, and from gathering evidence and undertaking the other procedures involved in down-to-earth policing, a policeman is likely to be that much sharper on the beat.
  Surely we are not naive enough to believe that policing is simply about putting thousands of extra people back on the beat. We do not want to return to the 1930s when there were three Royal Commissions on policing in three years and when there were 120,000 uneducated policemen on the beat, marching up and down looking for criminals. Policing is about skills and quality. It has repeatedly been stressed to me—by detectives, funnily enough—that the experience gained by prosecuting minor cases in magistrates courts was vital in teaching policemen about their wider duties.
  My next objection is that the source of policy formulation is profoundly confused. Other hon. Members wish to intervene so I shall not elaborate too much, but I cite one particular example. The recent case of Regina v. Fergus, which was a matter of mistaken identity, has led to the director of prosecutions in London issuing new guidelines on witness material. The guidelines are confusing in any event because they conflict with an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal on the protection of people who are subsequently acquitted. That is a detail, but the key point is that the director of prosecutions in London has issued fresh guidelines that are out of line with those in the rest of the country.
  The only argument for having a centralised service that seemed to carry any weight was that it would produce uniform standards. If there are no uniform standards, and if individual regional directors can set their own rules—in this case, one that involves a great deal of extra work—even that argument falls.
  What should we conclude from the original reasons for setting up the CPS? I believe that they boil down to three points, one of which is mistaken, one of which is pernicious and the third of which holds some water but its scope has been taken too wide. The mistaken argument is that an independent CPS enhances the credibility of the prosecuting authority because people believe that cases rest on more than the police having it in for someone or fitting someone up.
  It must be said that, while public confidence in the police has declined in the past few years—a recent Reader's Digest survey suggested that it is now down to 73 per cent.—confidence in the criminal justice system has also plummeted and, indeed, it now stands at below 50 per cent. in the courts. More important, the fact that the successful prosecution rate has fallen even though large numbers of cases have been dropped since the introduction of the CPS illustrates that that argument simply does not hold water.
  The second argument, which I believe to be utterly pernicious, is that the CPS provides a safety net against miscarriages of justice. As an old-fashioned Tory, I believe that argument to be constitutionally monstrous. Let us look at the figures. In the second quarter of this year, 43,000 cases were discontinued—just over half were discontinued on evidential grounds. The second largest category—almost a third of the total, or more than 12,000 cases—were discontinued in the so-called public interest. What kind of philosophy of justice says that bureaucrats operating in secrecy behind closed doors should be allowed

  1033
  to discontinue vast numbers of cases in the public interest? Twelve thousand victims out there have been told that their cases have been discontinued in the public interest, without any public debate. If a case is to be discontinued—unless that happens in the most exceptional circumstances—it should be discontinued either as a result of committal proceedings, which are in the open, or at a trial, where the judge has the power to scrub a case as early as he wants to do so.
  The third argument—the argument that convinces me that there is a case for having independent prosecution in some areas—is the resources argument. Many of the cases that used to start—and, in the case of the Serious Fraud Office, continue to start—cost absurd sums. Public money could be saved if expensive cases unlikely to succeed could be called off at an early stage. It is surely manifestly clear that we are talking not about summary or even hybrid offences but about major criminal cases.
  That brings me to my four conclusions. First, I recommend that the prosecution of summary and hybrid offences should be returned to the police—simply given back to the old system. That would be massively cheaper and massively faster. Moreover, and eminently, it would restore that vital training function to the police in the case of minor cases while allowing them to appoint whatever solicitors they chose for cases that were on the borderline or too complicated for them to follow themselves.
  Let me give a little plug to Christopher Frazer's excellent CPS pamphlet "Privatise the Prosecutors", in which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth had a hand. Christopher Frazer recommends an elaborate scheme for privatising the CPS on a local basis, basically arguing that the DPP should appoint local solicitors to carry out prosecutions in individual areas. Their contracts should be renewable every few years and the firms in question should not be allowed to take on defence work. That is a splendid suggestion, subject to the important condition that I mentioned, which is that I do not think that it should extend to summary and hybrid cases.
  My third recommendation is that major policy areas should be the responsibility of the DPP, answerable to the Attorney-General, alone. I would envisage the regional structure disappearing anyway. The idea that a major new demand can suddenly be imposed locally without clearance from the centre is absolutely wrong.
  The fourth recommendation applies to whatever system of prosecution we have. Tapes play an important part under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—an Act with which I have a lot of difficulty—and their use is widely supported, at least in major criminal cases. The summaries of those tapes, which create so much paperwork for the police, should be made by the CPS. There is a body of academic evidence suggesting that policemen are the wrong people to make the summaries anyway. They are not trained for it and, more important from my angle as a former management consultant, if the CPS were responsible for the summaries, it would be much less demanding than it is under the present arrangements. I am assured by policemen that that single measure would save vastly more paperwork than the total batch of recommendations that came out of the excellent report on police paperwork.
  We are steadily reforming all the links in the chain of the criminal justice system—except the weakest one. I welcome the reforms in the system and in police
  1034
  relationships with the public. We must tackle the CPS, the weakest link, and I commend my four simple recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  4.59 am
  Mr. Nigel Evans: This is perhaps the earliest time of day at which I have spoken in a debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing this important debate. It occurs at a time when the eyes of the nation are focused on law and order and on the way in which we tackle crime.
  I recently held three meetings in my constituency—at Fulwood, Clitheroe and Longridge—on law and order. At them, the voice of the public was as one in wishing the Government to get tougher with criminals and wanting those responsible for crime punished and, where necessary, put behind bars where they could inflict no more misery on society. I was therefore delighted when the Home Secretary announced his 27 points at the Conservative party conference and included them in the Queen's Speech. They fully underlined his commitment to pushing through legislation that will redress the balance in favour of the victim and against the criminal.
  For too long, we have been hoodwinked by those who favour leniency and submissiveness in dealing with the part of society that chooses to live outside the law. There is no doubt that the nation wants to see persistent young thugs properly punished, and not sent on holiday jaunts to the Algarve. I was delighted by the recent Home Department pronouncement against such "punishment", especially by local authorities that are for ever saying that they are starved of cash.
  People want better support for the victims of crime and new powers to revoke bail for persistent offenders. They also want new prisons that will keep criminals out of the community.
  In our battle to beat crime, the Crown Prosecution Service will be called on to take a lead role to ensure that those suspected of offences come before the courts to face their peers. That is the outcome which I seek, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that, in its current state, the CPS is greatly handicapped in its ability to perform to the highest standards. That is a tragedy, because the service has no shortage of worthwhile work to protect law-abiding citizens from the ravages of thugs, robbers and violent criminals. However, because of the mountain of bureaucracy in which it has become entangled, it seems unable to function to its full potential. In The Guardian last week, a lawyer stated:
  "We are bombarded with bumf from headquarters. I came thinking I was in Perry Mason and I ended up in 'Yes Minister'."
  The cost of this bureaucracy is great. It has created low morale among those in the organisation and tension between them and those who are at the sharp end of law enforcement—the police. That has led to an erosion of public confidence in its ability to protect their interests, and it is costing the taxpayer a great deal of money.
  Morale among CPS staff seems to be at an all-time low as, increasingly, they feel that they are being asked to prosecute only in cases in which there is a high probability of winning and dropping those that are more difficult. It is generally accepted that the Crown Prosecution Service will prosecute a case when it feels that it has a more than even chance of winning. However, in the past a Crown Prosecution Service officer working in York was reported as saying that, in reality, the percentage was closer to 70

  1035
  than to 50. That policy, whether written or implied by the powers in charge, is misguided and dangerous. It will lead, and undoubtedly has led, to guilty people walking away from their crimes without being made to pay for the consequences of their actions.
  A senior lawyer in the Crown Prosecution Service, who wished to remain anonymous, wrote in the Daily Mail on Thursday 21 October:
  "All lawyers need to be willing to fight difficult cases at times and good lawyers can win against all the odds. Unfortunately the CPS gives no encouragement to good lawyers or to courageous prosecuting.
  If a prosecutor drops a difficult case then nobody in the CPS criticises him on the grounds that the case could have been won. If he takes one on and wins, nobody praises him.
  But if he takes on a difficult case and loses, he could face criticism for accepting a weak case, and knows his career could be affected. So it is simpler and safer to drop a difficult case rather than fight it. And drop them prosecutors do—every day."
  That would be a serious indictment whoever levelled it at the CPS, but when one of its own employees does so it becomes a cause for great concern. We cannot afford a system that accepts only cast-iron cases to the exclusion of everything else. The "if in doubt, drop it" mentality has not gone unnoticed by the police or by the public, and it is causing both groups to lose confidence in the CPS.
  Too many times, a serious charge has been reduced to secure a conviction, or even dropped altogether. Defence lawyers are quick to take advantage of that weakness, and use it to good effect in protecting their clients' interests. For example, they will often encourage their clients, where possible, to opt for a Crown court trial and the extra costs that that would incur are used as a lever to get the prosecutor to reduce the severity of the charges so that the case may be heard in a magistrates court, which will lower the costs that the CPS will incur.
  In other cases, because its desire for a conviction has become so overriding, the CPS has been known to reduce the charges itself before going to court. To many, that may seem good practice, but that is of little consolation to a victim of rape who sees the charge for that serious crime reduced to indecent assault. If convicted in a magistrates court, the perpetrator will receive at most a sentence of six months in prison. There is no recourse for the victim to appeal to the Attorney-General for a more severe sentence to be passed, because the attacker was never tried for the rape. That lack of desire to prosecute is causing concern.
  For example, it cannot be right that we ask our policemen to risk their lives daily to protect the public, when in a recent case a policeman who had a knife pulled on him by a drunken driver saw the CPS alter the charge to the offence of carrying a bladed article—an offence not punishable by a prison sentence. Another case reported in The Daily Telegraph on Friday involved a policeman—PC Tony Stallard, with 27 years' service on the beat—who was assaulted by two teenagers whom he approached for stealing pub glasses. After being pushed to the ground and attacked, he was saved from a sustained assault only by two of his fellow officers, who restrained the attackers. Even with that seemingly overwhelming evidence, the CPS dropped the charges and Mr. Stallard has been forced to hire a solicitor and a barrister at a cost of several thousand pounds to mount a civil prosecution.
  After the CPS refused to prosecute a man who battered a police officer in Streatham, an inspector wrote:
  1036
  "This type of incident does nothing for the morale of officers who are at the butt end".
  In The Times recently, Stephen Wedd, the secretary of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said that the CPS was now better run, but that
  "what strikes me as extraordinary is that cases which we as defence solicitors can see are losers—losers for us—the CPS discontinues. They always play safe".
  Those are alarming examples, which must eat away at the confidence of police officers in their ability to do the job. I could give many other examples from newspaper articles. The Police Gazette of 15 October reports an attack on an officer that left him with a punctured lung and six broken ribs, yet still the CPS refused to prosecute.
  I am aware that the Police Federation has raised the concerns of its members with the Home Secretary, and I trust that the matter will be taken further. In the light of the examples that I have cited—they are by no means isolated —we need to ask ourselves how we can constructively tackle the problems facing the CPS, an organisation which employs more than 2,000 lawyers, 141 legal trainees and more than 4,000 support staff.
  To start with, we need to build bridges between the CPS and the lower levels of the police force. A senior officer in my constituency informed me that, although he and the Lancashire constabulary enjoyed a good relationship with the CPS, other police forces reported a great deal of antagonism between the CPS and officers at the grass roots. He claimed that much of that frustration is due to the fact that the police and the CPS have failed to establish a sound channel of communication.
  A major source of friction is the number of cases that the CPS decides not to prosecute after the police have handed over their findings. In 1992–93, the CPS decided against prosecuting 193,000 cases—equivalent to one in seven of the completed files referred to it by the police. The 193,000 victims are also important. The number of case dismissals was 20,000 up on the year before. Thousands of officers who worked tirelessly to complete the investigations feel aggrieved by that total and question the motives behind the dismissal of so many cases. Such is their sense of grievance, never mind the feelings of the victims who sit haplessly by, waiting for justice to be done, only to discover at a later date that their cases never reached the courts and their assailants walked free.
  The police are already operating a sifting procedure through their increased use of the caution. If the police think that a case has little chance of going far, they caution those charged. In 1992–93, some 41,000 fewer cases were referred to the CPS by the police; the number of completed cases at the magistrates court fell by 36,000 and the number of defendants going to Crown court fell by 9,000. At a time of rising crime, that is not good enough.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that a review of the working of the CPS would be welcome. I am sure that much of demoralisation suffered by its employees stems from the massive case loads with which they are forced to deal. Defendants wait until the last moment before they change their plea of not guilty, but the work load of the CPS could be reduced if they were encouraged to lodge a plea of guilty at an earlier stage. Of those defendants who elected for jury trial, 82 per cent. pleaded guilty. The majority did so on the day of the trial. We must encourage those who are guilty so to plead at a

  1037
  much earlier stage in the proceedings. In that way, the time of the police, the CPS, the courts and the witnesses would not be wasted.
  The current procedures are a sham. I was in Preston magistrates court the other day when a person changed his plea from not guilty to guilty. Two police officers who had each wasted three hours in the court then had to leave. If that guilty plea had been lodged earlier a lot of wasted time could have been saved. We should consider a system under which discounted sentences could be encouraged if a guilty plea was recorded earlier In the proceedings. That would free tens of thousands of CPS man hours which could be used to deal with more serious cases. That change might offer a new incentive to prosecute difficult cases where the outcome might go either way.
  I am seeking not to find scapegoats, but to bring to the attention of the House the problems faced by the CPS. Although I do not believe that those problems could cause the terminal illness of the CPS, they must not be allowed to fester dangerously, as that causes misunderstanding and mistrust. Employees in the CPS are losing confidence in their ability to do their jobs.
  I look forward to the report of the CPS into why cases are being dropped—we should have it before Christmas. I hope that it will be able to answer some of the criticisms made of it relating to the number of cases dropped and those in which the charge is reduced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has said, is all the burgeoning paperwork absolutely necessary to enable the police to conduct their business?
  I urge the Attorney-General to take the necessary action to correct the obvious problems. Let us make the system work for the victims; let us put them first, where they belong, and the criminals in the dock, where they belong. Then justice will not only be done, but be seen to be done.
  5.14 am
  Mr. Roger Evans: One of the more exotic mysteries to which scholarship will, in 100 years, apply itself is how the Government of Baroness Thatcher managed in the 1980s to set up a new nationalised industry in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service, in lieu of a privatised system and one that involved compulsory competitive tendering as a matter of practice throughout the rural counties. How did that extraordinary state of affairs come about? The explanation, inevitably, is that the great and good, in the form of the Philips commission, suggested a scheme, which was transmuted into an even grander scheme by civil servants. That led to the creation of a system designed to implement the abstract idea that, somehow, the last few centuries of our legal history were inadequate because there was no independent prosecutor, independent of the police, applying itself in virtually every case that was dealt with. The difficulty is that when abstract ideas are applied, they do not work in the way intended.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on analysing, in great and devastating detail, the dissatisfaction that is general at the moment, particularly among the police. The problem goes well beyond that. The judiciary, the legal profession and the public at large, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) explained in great detail, are grievously concerned at the present state of affairs.
  I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General Mr. Christopher Frazer's recent book
  1038
  "Privatise the Prosecutors", which analyses the problem in detail and makes a compelling case for urgent change. Let us see why that urgent change is necessary. The idea behind having an independent prosecutor was that the police could not be trusted and that such an independent prosecutor would ensure a uniform and higher standard of decision making in prosecuting and a higher execution in quality of prosecuting. Plainly, that does not happen. Whatever its difficulties, the old system achieved much more public satisfaction.
  he first disastrous consequence of the Crown prosecuting system—it is the system that is at fault, not the people who operate it—is demoralisation of the police force. When the two roles of investigating officer and independent prosecuting authority are split, there is an immediate need for communication between the two, which means an explosion of paperwork and, in the inevitable course of the civil service, an extraordinary explosion in the type of forms required.
  It is worse than that. PC Dixon, the officer in the case under the old system, had a personal responsibility. He was subject to his supervising officer, but he had to investigate the case, get the evidence together, make sure that there was enough evidence, get his witnesses to court and, if they were simple cases, get them prosecuted himself. He had direct personal responsibility; he was accountable. If he made a mistake, the magistrates would throw the case out, with costs against the police. There was simple accountability, simple responsibility and simple retribution if he got it wrong.
  If it were a more complicated case, involving trial on indictment, PC Dixon could go to his own solicitor—that was true in many rural areas, right up to the end of the old system. For example, in Herefordshire, private firms of solicitors did the prosecuting, and they were chosen for their professional qualities and their expertise. The prosecuting solicitor was a prestigious appointment. In the country, provincial firms were anxious to compete to be awarded that task. In other parts of the country, there was an in-house policy prosecuting solicitor. In Gwent and in Gloucestershire, of which I had professional experience many years ago, the system worked well and was effective. The important thing was that even if there was an in-house police solicitor, PC Dixon knew that he was dealing with that solicitor, not with some separate individual force that would override, overturn or ignore his views and not carry out the priorities that he understood.
  Since then, there has been a split or division between the police officer in a case and the independent prosecutor. Neither is entirely responsible. The witnesses do not turn up; the evidence is not secured. In simpler cases, the level of expert decision making is in question. It sounds wonderful to have an expert lawyer involved in every case, but that is not how the system works. Relatively junior staff deal with relatively junior police officers, and increasingly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury explained—with junior PC Dixons who have not had the experience of being responsible for a case and knowing how to present it. It is no good the Government saying that they want to reduce the amount of paperwork and simplify the obligations of the police unless they deal with the fundamental suggestion that the Crown prosecuting solicitor is an unnecessary shackle and an attack on the integrity of the police, and that he does not help.

  1039
  It may be said that, in the old days in Bow street magistrates court, quite a lot of policemen were milling about waiting for their cases to come on as each PC Dixon brought his case to be dealt with. Should not those policemen be on the beat, rather than presenting cases in court? That, however, is a superficial argument.
  I do not accept for a moment that any time was wasted on that exercise, because it was devoted to ensuring that a case was brought to court, dealt with and disposed of. Nowadays, PC Dixon is wasting very much more time preparing written material for the CPS-or, as has been pointed out, his colleagues are providing the security service in magistrates courts that was taken for granted in the old days. Indeed, at one stage in our history, those courts were known as police courts. There was never any suggestion that there were not enough police officers to ensure that the system operated properly. That arrangement was necessary for the dignity and integrity of the court system, and it was astonishing that it should be removed. This issue matters so much to the morale and effectiveness of our police force that it must be dealt with effectively.
  Let me make another point, echoing my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. A very important constitutional issue has been fudged. The older view was that, where there was evidence, there was a duty to prosecute. When the late Mr. Raymond Blackburn—a distinguished former Member of Parliament—went boldly to court to challenge the then policy of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis not to prosecute pornographers in Soho, Lord Denning and the courts made it clear that there was a duty to prosecute. The only exception in the 1960s was a case involving several thousand examples of breaches of food and drugs regulations; someone suggested that it was not necessary to prosecute each and every one.
  No one would have doubted, in the whole of our constitutional history—from the Glorious Revolution until the introduction of the CPS—that it was possible for public bodies not to prosecute when there was something of a case. What has happened? To what was the Bill of Rights directed? It forbids the suspending and dispensing of the law of the land in individual cases, but, under new prosecuting guidelines, an elastic and slippery test of the public interest has now been applied. That test enables the CPS to drop the astonishing cases of which my hon. Friends have given details.
  In a less happy, honourable and great land than ours, that would have led to corruption and tyranny. In this country, it leads only to inefficiency, unfairness and a sense of public outrage that honourable public servants are behaving in a way that is eccentric and unhelpful.
  Mr. Brazier: I shall not go into individual cases, but my hon. Friend must be aware that, in areas where there are racial tensions, if there is any racist aspect of a case that is subsequently dropped—whether the racial group comprises Asians resenting a racial attack by whites, whites resenting an allegedly racial attack by West Indians or others—word starts immediately to spread that the decision was made for racial reasons.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is corroding and corrosive and it undermines public confidence in the administration of the law.
  1040
  The point that really matters—it is an outrage in our free country—is that decisions whether to prosecute should not be taken, to use pejorative language, by state prosecutors acting in private. That is the behaviour of a Minister of the Interior in a nasty foreign country that does not understand liberty as we have known it since 1688. I am being more generous than my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury in that I think that that system is driven largely by muddle and inefficiency. However, it is wrong in principle and it should stop.
  As a member of the Bar, my further professional unhappiness with modern arrangements is that we now have full-time independent Crown prosecutors, which leads to polarisation in the legal profession. The glory of the Bar and of country solicitors was, and is, the fact that they dealt with every case that came to them, whatever the side. A country solicitor could be prosecuting for PC Dixon one day and defending the local villain the next. There was independent professional judgment and solicitors were expected to be fair. Nobody suggested that they would not be fair. Now, we have state prosecutors under siege from public criticism and, the most unattractive feature of the modern legal profession, the type of civil libertarian practitioner who seems to believe that every guilty case is plainly not so. The older system led to higher professional standards and offered openness and opportunities for practitioners to appear for the public.
  I must deal with the remedies for this serious and unhappy situation. There is such an accumulation of dissatisfaction that nothing less than severe and serious action is called for urgently. I endorse and welcome what I believe to be the most important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, that the police should be given back their exclusive role of dealing with and prosecuting summary and hybrid offences. If they need legal advice, they can obtain it from private solicitors. If they need more than that, they can, at worst, obtain it from an in-house solicitor. That was the system that created responsibility and direct accountability and promoted standards.
  The fundamental mistake in the new system is that decisions on whether to prosecute are taken in private by state prosecutors. A proper sifting system should be open, judicial and public. In our country prior to 1931, a grand jury would have formed a view as to the appropriateness of a prosecution, which is what happens in the United States now. Until 1968, in a trial on indictment, there was no question of involving any paperwork. PC Dixon had to produce each and every relevant witness to tell the justices the story so that they could form a view on whether there was sufficient material to bring a prosecution. There was a judicial determination of whether a case should be dealt with by trial by jury.
  In 1967, somebody thought of saving public money —it is always dangerous in the law to reduce standards, allegedly to save money. The idea now is to serve a bundle of statements. The justices have no duty to consider whether there is anything in them. They simply act as a postbag. That is the farce of the modern committal system. All the cases end up going to the Crown court and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said, making up one's mind at the last possible moment when faced with the ultimate threat of the prison doors is endemic in the criminal world. People will not make up their minds conveniently to suit the police or the prosecution or for the convenience of the courts. Someone like Bill Sykes makes

  1041
  up his mind at the last possible moment when there is no alternative other than to go to prison. Vast numbers of cases have gone to the Crown court because there is no proper committal system, due to the foolishness of the 1967 legislation which led to the modern system. I do not urge one arrangement or another, but either the magistrates or the Crown court judge should have a preliminary summary sifting process to determine, on express open criteria, whether a case should be allowed to proceed.
  One remedy is recommended by Mr. Christopher Frazer in the book that I mentioned. If we must retain an independent Crown prosecutor, he should, at most, be a part-time local solicitor in private practice—somebody of professional distinction who is honoured to be made an important figure in the community. That would deal with the small number of cases in which the police said that they needed legal advice. It would leave it entirely to the police to decide whether they wanted to go to such a local Crown prosecutor or to bring in their own independent solicitor.
  As we well know, there are exceptions. The police are shackled with having to use the Crown Prosecution Service. That is not the case for certain Departments which, if they want to prosecute, can go to their own legal advisers. The Government always exclude their servants from the monopoly that they create.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions should return to the traditional role of dealing with a small number of particularly sensitive and important public issues.
  The talents of the people who work in the Crown Prosecution Service are being failed by the system. There is a premium on timidity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury explained. They would be better off in private practice. As soon as we have a national civil service, with a salary scale applying from one end of the land to another, it is difficult to get people to do the job in inner London, where it is more expensive to live. The system should be ended.
  Above all, because of the importance of the morale and effectiveness of the police and of the Government's policies for getting to grips with the problem of rising crime, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to take urgent and early action to deal with the crisis in the Crown Prosecution Service, which should never have been set up as it was. The country will be satisfied only when it is abolished—and the sooner, the better.
  5.31 am
  Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on achieving this debate and starting a stimulating discussion, to which I hope to add.
  The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Crown Prosecution Service were curious because he sought to excuse the Government's appalling failure to tackle crime while identifying real concern about the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service. Those failures must be seen against the background of the criminal justice system as a whole. He described the Home Secretary as the author of a remarkable package on crime. The package is remarkable mainly in its failure to tackle crime and the causes of crime. The so-called "27-point plan" exposed in parliamentary questions lacks in detail, is short on time scale, limited in
  1042
  scope, lacks a strategy for crime prevention and reform, and, in the past fortnight, has been exposed by the Budget figures as lacking cash and resources.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) showed a similar tendency to ignore the Government's general failure on crime while criticising the Crown Prosecution Service as though its failures had nothing to do with Conservative policies. He referred to late pleas entered by defendants. There are ways in which the whole system could be streamlined and timetabled if only Ministers would listen to the advice that has been offered to them in recent years and particularly in recent months.
  I am appalled to learn that civil servants are saying that the Criminal Justice Bill, which we shall debate shortly, is full and that inter-agency advice from bodies like the working group on pre-trial issues is to be ignored. That should be of concern to Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) was devastating in his criticism of Baroness Thatcher's Government and the demoralisation of police and others in the criminal justice system that has developed during the past 14 years, but restrained himself from putting blame on the shoulders of Ministers who are still in office. I sympathise with his point about the contribution of police officers in courts under the previous system. From my experience as a juvenile court magistrate in particular, I can say that removing PC Ron Ashe from Cardiff juvenile court was the most disastrous decision in juvenile justice that I have encountered.
  I ask the hon. Member for Monmouth to keep an eye on the Home Secretary's tendency to undervalue the skills of police officers in a range of other duties and the dangers inherent in the forthcoming Magistrates Courts and Police Bill. The Home Secretary, in common with his predecessor, wants to be the sort of nasty Minister for the interior that the hon. Member for Monmouth rightly scorned. I ask only that he balances his views.
  The hon. Member for Monmouth should acknowledge that the accumulation of dissatisfaction with the Crown Prosecution Service that he rightly identified is directed equally and with similar passion at other elements of the criminal justice system. There is no doubt that the public have lost confidence in that system. The fact that someone is punished by a court in only one crime in 50 is itself an incredible indictment of the Government's failure to deal with crime and its causes.
  This debate addresses the specific problem of the CPS's failure to deliver the goods, but Ministers should recognise that that is only one aspect of a general failure.
  Mr. Brazier: I find myself listening to the hon. Gentleman's remarks with increasing disbelief. He is taking the debate extremely wide with a series of attacks on the Government, but he has not made one constructive policy suggestion. I hope that he will do so shortly.
  Mr. Michael: That is a scurrilous remark and untrue. Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Canterbury, took the debate well wide of the CPS. I have already made a significant constructive contribution, in saying that advice from inter-agency bodies such as the working party that I mentioned—to which, apparently, Ministers and civil servants are not prepared to listen—should be embodied in the criminal justice legislation that will come before the House shortly. That would assist the

  1043
  CPS, courts and criminal justice system generally. If the hon. Member for Canterbury thinks that I am not making constructive points, he does not understand the topic that he raised.
  Ministers continually tinker with the wrong parts of the system and the way in which prosecutions are brought in particular. We expect this week the appearance of the Magistrates Courts and Police Bill, which is based on an ill-judged White Paper and will reduce accountability and the local nature of police forces. The Home Secretary continually offers fancy words and yet more legislation, when he would be better occupied preventing and reducing crime, using measures to support the police for which no new legislation is needed and recognising that the Conservative party can enjoy no credibility when the right hon. and learned Gentleman has reneged on a manifesto promise of an extra 1,000 on the police establishment this year by cutting it by 224 posts since the general election.
  In common with the hon. Member for Canterbury, I spent an evening in a city centre and I was appalled at how thin is the thin blue line. The paperwork to which Conservative Members referred is certainly a contributory factor in drawing that line so thin.
  Against that background, we must consider the dismal story of the CPS and the scandal of dropped prosecutions, which is letting down victims and the public. Fewer cases are going to court and more cases are discontinued. Throughout the country, police officers of every rank—from constables and sergeants to chief constables—have expressed to me over the past year their anger and frustration at being let down when the CPS fails to proceed with a prosecution. That frustration is causing enormous damage to public confidence as well as to police morale.
  Ministers may say that the public interest has to be observed. Conservative Members have also expressed a reservation about the way in which the concept of public interest is being used or misused. They may say that a case should not go ahead where there is no chance of success. I wish that I could be confident that it is only in such circumstances that cases are dropped, but I do not believe that. I am now convinced that the pressure to drop cases to save money is too great. We know that managers and bureaucrats put pressure on lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce charges against their better judgment. Pressure is specifically applied to convince lawyers to reduce all section 47 charges of causing actual bodily harm to charges of common assault. That pressure is distorting justice. Ministers must carry the can for that approach, and should promise the House to put a stop to it forthwith.
  There is also a failure to obtain the practical effective liaison that is needed between the police and the CPS. References have been made to the organisation of the CPS. Its reorganisation on the basis of larger areas was wrong. It would have been far better for the service to be based on the areas of the court that it served and the boundaries of a single police authority. There would be much more direct accountability and co-operation between the two agencies in those circumstances. Such organisational issues need to be addressed. The last reorganisation was carried out with far too little thought—lines were drawn up on a central map rather than on the knowledge of the CPS and the police service on the ground.
  1044
  Above all, there is a need to put the victim at the centre of the consideration of the CPS. I still feel unhappy about the case of one of my constituents, even after investigating all the circumstances. The son of my constituent was attacked in a bar and a glass was smashed into his face causing the loss of an eye. The attacker was identified and the file passed to the CPS for action. The prosecution decided to accept a guilty plea to a lower charge and drop the more serious charges, which meant that the evidence was not called. The family was shocked to hear a plea in mitigation that the young man had provoked the attack —a suggestion which had not previously been made. As evidence was not heard, the suggestion could not be challenged. I am sure that Conservative Members will share my distaste for such an occurrence, which is not unusual.
  That case resulted in a relatively trivial sentence for an offence far less serious than the one originally framed, and a victim, family and witnesses who still feel frustrated and angry a considerable time after the event. They might have felt unhappy had the court heard all the evidence and reached that decision, but they feel cheated because the court had no chance to judge the evidence.
  There are many ways in which the victim, the family and even the community can, on occasion, be made to feel that they have been treated as a marginal irrelevance in the prosecution process. That feeling is voiced by the police with worrying regularity and has been reflected in hon. Members' speeches in tonight's debate.
  The system of prosecution is bureaucratic and slow whereas crime happens fast, is often nasty and creates victims who are then given inadequate consideration. That is why, this spring, I proposed an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to put the victim at the centre of the process and to require the CPS to consult victims on the nature of the offences to be put. My amendment was particularly designed to require the CPS to consult the victims or nearest relatives before agreeing to downgrade or withdraw charges.
  That proposal would not give the victim the power of veto, but the requirement to explain the decision to a victim and to the police would be a powerful means of ensuring that the events were properly assessed and that the victim's view was heard and properly considered. It was such a simple, fair and practical concept that I was amazed when the Government rejected it. That demonstrated the contempt of the Conservative party for victims when it has a chance to put matters right. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made fresh proposals on the issue, and the Government would be well advised to accept them without further delay.
  The Government are about to produce proposals on the scheme to compensate the victims of crime, which will result in considerable unfairness. They have not done enough to help victims through the victim support scheme, through witness support and through changing the ethos of the courts to show greater respect and consideration for the victims and witnesses.
  The failure in prosecutions is only one part of a dismal picture—
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the victim and about what should be done so that he feels that justice has been done. In many cases where attacks have been made on individuals, especially by persistent offenders, the victim might feel that such a person should

  1045
  receive a custodial sentence. However, the hon. Gentleman and his party believe that the new prisons announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should not be built. How does he square that with care for the victim?
  Mr. Michael: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. We have criticised the Home Secretary's one-track approach. He believes that only prison works. He will drain the rest of the Home Office budget to put the money into prisons, the need for which is made greater by the Government's failure over the last few years to prevent and to tackle crime and to reduce the number of offenders who need prison sentences. The increase in the number of victims has arisen because of the Government's failure during recent years. It was one of the things that made me angry enough to stand for Parliament. The hon. Gentleman should study the history with some care before seeking to defend it.
  I want to detail the facts of the one particular part of the picture with which we are dealing in this debate. In a year during which we have heard a great deal from the Home Secretary about crime, the number of cases coming to the Crown court continues to fall. Recorded crime has risen by 124 per cent. since the Conservative party came to power, yet in the year to April 1992 the number of cases received into the Crown court was 105,248 while in the year ended October 1992 it had fallen to just over 102,000, and by the year ended October 1993 was down to 87,164. Than is a drop of 17 per cent. in 18 months and a staggering drop of 15 per cent. in the last 12 months.
  For more than six months, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has been demanding an inquiry into the reasons for the drop in the number of cases coming to court at a time of such a dramatic rise in crime. It is bizarre that the Government are unwilling to undertake such an inquiry or, better still, to recognise that Labour identified the problem long before the summer recess and offered practical ways forward that the Government should now accept. Similarly, the number of cases disposed of by the courts is showing a worrying decline—also down 17 per cent. in 18 months.
  Our investigations also show the extent of the current crisis in the criminal justice system. I shall cite four particular facts. First, the number of cases coming to the magistrates court has actually fallen from 1,574,000 in 1988–89 to 1,530,000 last year. Secondly, the number of cases withdrawn or dismissed from magistrates courts has increased by 50 per cent. since 1987 while convictions have fallen by more than 40,000. Thirdly, the number of cases discontinued before they came to court has risen by 78 per cent. since 1987–88, yet delays are getting worse, with the average time for cases in the magistrates court to be completed up by 20 per cent. since 1986.
  Those statistics are worrying and should have been enough to stir Ministers into action. However, I shall highlight one further problem. There is more than anecdotal evidence that charges are being downgraded just to keep them out of the Crown court. In one magistrates court in London, 75 per cent. of cases of actual bodily harm were downgraded to the lesser charge of common assault. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield asked the Attorney-General for the exact figures of cases being downgraded, they were not available. That, too, should be part of a general Government investigation.
  1046
  The fact is that we know, even without more detailed information, that there is a real and growing problem. Too many offenders are laughing at the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General because their agents in the Crown Prosecution Service are driven by cost rather than justice.
  Every time a case is dropped for convenience or cost, there is a danger that an offender will conclude that he can get away with it and he may offend again. On that point, I am at one with hon. Members who contributed earlier. The victim will feel let down and degraded, the police will feel let down, and, in truth, the public have a right to feel betrayed.
  The victims and those involved in the fight against crime deserve better than that. The proper conclusion of tonight's debate would be a promise from the Attorney-General that he will investigate the failures of the system and the failings of the CPS, that he will bring the whole sorry business out for proper public scrutiny, and that he will change the constraints on the CPS to put the victims at centre stage and to ensure that fewer people get away with crimes, particularly crimes of violence, on grounds of bureaucratic convenience and cost-cutting.
  As I have said, that promise will not solve all the problems, but it will be a start. The Government need to introduce a major package to restore confidence in the whole system, and there are many ways in which costs can be cut while the speed and quality of justice are improved.
  The Opposition will continue to press for such improvements, and to help with positive suggestions and concrete proposals, but for tonight we shall be content if the Attorney-General promises to take a grip on the failings of policies and management in the CPS.
  The survey published by the Association of First Division Civil Servants, which Ministers have attempted to brush aside, merely confirms what has been obvious for a long time—that Government policy and financial pressures are distorting justice by undermining the effectiveness of prosecutors. That is properly a subject of ministerial accountability, not just a question of administrative responsibility within the agency, and I urge the Attorney-General to give the House the promises that we need.
  5.51 am
  The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): First, join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on instituting this debate on an important subject which is highly topical, and rightly so. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on joining in, and I look forward to answering the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury made some critical remarks about the CPS, but I am grateful to him for not attacking individual Crown prosecutors. I wish to open the debate by explaining briefly to the House what a tough job the individual Crown prosecutors have, how well they do it and what strides the CPS and its Crown prosecutors, all 2,100 of them today, have made in recent years.
  I have now been a Law Officer for six and half years and during that period I have visited the CPS throughout the country. As we know, it was understaffed and somewhat underfunded when it began its life and in those days there

  1047
  were many young Crown prosecutors as well as much more experienced Crown prosecutors from the old county prosecuting service.
  Today, as one visits the CPS in different parts—in the past few weeks I have visited the CPS in the west midlands and in the Reading area—one is met by highly experienced professional prosecutors, younger and older, doing an extremely tough job very effectively.
  A Crown prosecutor can expect to arrive at a large multiple court with several courts running at the same time, day in, day out, carrying anything between 30 and 70 cases, and perhaps be divested, for the convenience of the court, of five or 10 of those cases, and have put into his hand to deal with professionally, straight away, three, four or five extra cases, which he has to pick up and take on the hoof, not because of any deficiency in the CPS but because we are dealing with busy courts operating busy and tight schedules. They are highly professional people and they deserve our thanks.
  It is worth looking at the overall number of cases handled by the CPS, not just for statistics on discontinuance, to which I shall come in detail. The CPS receives about 1,500,000 cases each year, to be handled by 2,100 Crown prosecutors on behalf of 120,000 police officers, with just under 100,000 of those cases being dealt with in the Crown court, with all the preparation that that properly requires.
  It should be remembered that the process of prosecution over the past 10 years has become significantly more complex, for reasons which we know and understand and of which we fundamentally approve. Advance disclosure to the defence requires preparation of statements so that they can be given in advance. Tape recording and the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 put burdens, with respect to the safeguarding of justice, on the police.
  I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth that we should go back to a world in which there is no Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Prosecutors also have responsibility for making available unused material. That is the background of the highly professional service that we must now examine.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury suggested, following the paper written by Mr. Christopher Frazer, entitled "Privatise the Prosecutors", that we should abandon the Crown Prosecution Service which has been so carefully built up in the past several years and go back to using the ordinary high street solicitor. I have a high regard for high street solicitors. I grew up in the world of quarter sessions. I think that that is the world to which all my hon. Friends hark back, but I must warn them against putting on rose-tinted spectacles. I honestly believe that the weight of prosecution today is too heavy for a system of that nature.
  Although I have no doubt that the middle-ranking high street solicitor referred to by Mr. Frazer in his pamphlet would seek to do a gallant job, I beg to doubt whether it would be possible to run the service anything like as efficiently and effectively as it is run by the CPS under the direction and control of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Barbara Mills.
  Mr. Brazier: Even if one were to concede all my right hon. and learned Friend's points, surely, given the training, the expertise and, inevitably, the cost of the people whom
  1048
  he mentions, the CPS cannot be an appropriate body to deal with offences such as shoplifting, which could simply be dealt with, as they were in the old days, by policemen.
  The Attorney-General: Yes, a simple shoplifting case was dealt with effectively by police officers. Some police officers and court inspectors became extremely experienced and effective prosecutors in their own right. However, I have just mentioned the weight and volume of cases that have to be not only dealt with in court but prepared. I invite my hon. Friend to go around either his local office of the Crown Prosecution Service or one of the larger offices in London to see exactly what we are talking about.
  I must move on, because there are only 10 minutes before the end of the debate and I have some positive things to say to the House, to my hon. Friends and to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth about the subject of the debate. First, I wish to say a word about the origin of the Crown Prosecution Service and why it was put in place. The Crown Prosecution Service was established by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and became fully operational in October 1986. Its creation was the result of recommendations made in 1981 by the Philips Royal Commission on criminal procedure. That royal commission found that prosecution arrangements across the country were haphazard. It criticised the lack of any consistent prosecution policy and the lack of an independent element in the prosecution process.
  With the exception of the Director of Public Prosecutions, prosecutors worked in a solicitor-client relationship with the police. The royal commission found that too many weak cases were being prosecuted and that there was an attendant risk of miscarriages of justice occurring. Like the recent Runciman Royal Commission on criminal justice, the Philips royal commission followed a serious miscarriage of justice that arose from the death of Maxwell Confait and the wrongful conviction of three young men for homicide. The case had to be investigated a number of times, and I remember that when I became a Member it was very much in our minds. That is the background to the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service.
  I want to move straight on to the key topics of the debate and put before the House the announcements that I must make. The key topics focus on discontinuance. We are all aware that the number of discontinued cases has increased, but hon. Members must recall that the CPS was established to review cases. It is neither surprising nor wrong, therefore, that a significant proportion of the cases that it reviews will be weeded out. It may be significant, although almost anything can be done with statistics, that the number of cases dismissed in magistrates courts has remained fairly static in recent years. I do not want to put too much weight on any statistic, but it may be that a significant proportion of discontinued cases are rightly discontinued.
  I have personally looked into some individual cases. If a case worries hon. Members, they should bring it to me or to the Director of Public Prosecutions and it will be looked into. I have looked into a large number of cases. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is a problem. The CPS does not set out to discontinue cases unreasonably. It aims to ensure that the right cases get to court and to avoid unfairness to defendants. Initiating a case unnecessarily is

  1049
  a very invasive process, with all the worry that it causes victims and the wasting of court time. We want to bring cases that can be carried to conviction.
  In November 1993—this takes up what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said—a study of all cases discontinued that month was conducted at the behest of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was designed to obtain as much information as possible on the reasons for discontinuance. That statistical study is being analysed and I will inform the House, probably in the new year, of such results as one can draw from it.
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has put in place a new structure designed to monitor the quality of prosecution decisions throughout the country. As the House knows, the CPS is now divided into 13 areas. In each area, under a national director of casework, an assistant chief Crown prosecutor is charged expressly with monitoring standards of discontinuance and with organising training for Crown prosecutors in this important matter.
  The second announcement that I wish to make—and this is new—is in relation to the code for Crown prosecutors. At the heart of the code are the requirements, first, that before a prosecution is brought there must be a sufficiency of evidence to give a realistic prospect of conviction and, secondly, that the prosecution, which normally can be expected to follow if there is a sufficiency of evidence, should be in the public interest. That code is to be reviewed, and the aim of the review will be to simplify the language of the code and to put it into plain English to make it a document more easily understood by police officers and members of the public who are not lawyers. That is to be widely welcomed. The DPP is confident that the fundamental principles of the code remain sound, but she believes—and I believe—that the evidential criterion and the requirement for a realistic prospect of conviction can be clarified and that the public interest factors in favour of a prosecution can be brought out more clearly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth will not, I hope, take it amiss if I remind him and the House that through the decades—down the centuries, almost—those two criteria have been an essential part of any prosecution decision. I refer him to the classic statement by one of my predecessors, Sir Hartley Shawcross, about the fact that one takes into account not only the evidential sufficiency but the public interest. Of course, it can be taken at a simple, domestic level.
  We all remember the tragic case of Lady Isobel Barnet who, sadly, became a kleptomaniac and was prosecuted for shoplifting, for reasons of illness. She killed herself. It is not in the public interest to prosecute every elderly and infirm person who commits an offence. At the other end of the spectrum, prosecutions can be discontinued in the public interest for reasons of the greatest national security. My predecessor rightly answered questions in the House about that, and I should be willing to do so.
  I have only a minute left, but I want to mention victims. The CPS is intensely aware of its duty to victims. When a case is reviewed, it is our objective that the reason for the review and any potential discontinuance is not restricted to the Crown prosecutor but is fed not only to police headquarters but, through the police's administration support unit, to the officer on the beat dealing with the case so that the victim can be informed and consulted. The DPP was speaking about this issue only last weekend at the
  1050
  Lamplugh Trust seminar at the same time as the shadow Home Secretary. She has been taking the lead for a considerable time—
  In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.
  Mr John Marshall: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
  Notice being taken that strangers were present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Nick Raynsford(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that there are no strangers present, and I question the appropriateness of a Division being called on this issue.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): My recollection is that, at the time, one or two people were present.
  Mr. Raynsford: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When you called the Division, there was no stranger present in the Gallery.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Whether that is the case or not, I have no discretion, provided the procedures are followed.
  The House having divided: Ayes Nil, Noes 2.
  Ms Liz Lynne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. While I am on my feet, I do not expect to take points of order.
  It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.
  Ms Lynne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to call "I spy strangers" when apparently there are no strangers in the Gallery?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no discretion in putting the Question. I understand that it is a matter of dispute as to whether there were strangers. It is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Effectively, the business of the House has been brought to a close by an "I spy strangers" by an hon.

  1051
  Member who has neither charm, dignity nor sense. Indeed, he has shown contempt for Londoners, who were about to hear a debate on London's transport, contempt for the House of Commons and contempt for the parliamentary process. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will express concern about public schoolboys playing such silly games.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I observe only that I had to undergo the same procedure last Friday morning.
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Six o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mrs. Naheem Ejaz
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what attempts the Home Office made to legally deprive Mrs. Naheem Ejaz of Bracknell, Berkshire, of her citizenship before moving to deport her;

  (2) what is the total cost to the taxpayer of the failed attempt to deport Mrs. Naheem Ejaz of Bracknell, Berkshire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  One of the requirements for naturalisation under section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 is that the applicant is married to a British citizen. Mrs. Ejaz's husband has never been such a British citizen. When this came to light, Mrs. Ejaz was informed that her naturalisation was a nullity. Since her certificate on naturalisation was considered not to have been granted to her lawfully in the first place, it was not thought necessary to proceed to formal deprivation of citizenship under section 40 of the 1981 Act.

  It is not the practice of the immigration and nationality department routinely to record the administrative costs of individual case handling. The cost of detaining Mrs. Ejaz prior to her planned removal in September 1992 was £550. The legal costs in her case have not yet been finally determined.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring the sentences available for non-consensual buggery in line with those for rape.

  Mr. Mclean
  The law in this area is kept under review, but there are no current plans to amend it.

  Overseas Police Training
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what foreign police personnel are at present on training programmes with police forces in the United Kingdom; and if he will list each country, the number of personnnel involved and the courses they are taking.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I regret that this information is not available.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the police operation against the anti-M11 link campaigners in Wanstead on 7 December.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the 528
  additional manpower costs of the operation were £97,532. Information on the cost of support services and other resources involved is not available.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers and from which divisions were involved in the operation against MI1 link road protestors in Wanstead on 7 December.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 371 officers from all parts of the Metropolitan police district were involved in the operation.

  Shotguns
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shotgun certificates were on issue at 31 December in each year from 1985 in each police force area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Statistics of shotgun certificates on issue in each police force in England and Wales have been published annually since 1986 in Home Office statistical bulletins "Firearm Certificate Statistics"—prior to 1991, "Statistics on the operation of the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1988"—copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for 1985 are not readily available by police force area.

  The bulletin issue numbers are as follows: 2/88, 33/88, 18/89, 26/90, 23/91, 19/92, 23/93.

  Prisoners' Work (Pay)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consideration he has given to establishing projects for prisoners' work to justify a competitive wage of a nature to enable them to contribute to the costs of their keep, their families and victim support;

  (2) what plans there are to review paid work undertaken by prisoners in gaol.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Lady Olga Maitland, dated 14 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about paid work undertaken by prisoners in jail.
  A high priority for the Prison Service is to ensure that prisoners participate in active and demanding regimes centred on work, training and education. Improvements in the quantity, quality, productivity and realism of work form an important part of the Service's plans.
  Prisoners are paid for engaging productively in work and other activities. This includes participation in education and training programmes, manufacturing goods in prison workshops and duties directly contributing to the running of an establishment such as cleaning and working in prison kitchens.
  To extend the range and quality of work available pilot schemes are in progress where prisoners are paid closer to market rates. The wider introduction of higher rates of pay for prisoners as suggested in the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice, the Way Ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales' is under consideration.
  It may be possible in the longer term to increase pay for productive work more generally. If so payments would be made from increased wages towards accommodation and maintenance costs in prison, compulsory compensation payments to victims

  529
  and maintenance payments for family and dependents outside. Currently the Secretary of State has a legal obligation to meet the costs of imprisonment for all prisoners.

  Elderly Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prison inmates held in prisons in England and Wales were over the age of 80 years as of 1 December.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 14 December 1993:
  Inmates over 80 years of age in prison service establishments
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of (a) men and (b) women in Prison Service establishments who were over the age of 80 years on 1 December.
  The lastest available information is for 31 October 1993. On that date there were four inmates (all of whom were male) aged over 80 in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Horserace Betting Levy Board
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions his Department has entered into with Opposition parties over the recent appointments of persons to the Horserace Betting Levy Board;

  (2) what are the reasons for and criteria behind his decision to reappoint Mrs. Anna McCurley to membership of the Horserace Betting Levy Board;

  (3) if he will list the necessary qualifications and qualities necessary for an appointment to membership of the Horserace Betting Levy Board.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have had no discussion with Opposition parties about recent appointments of members to the Horserace Betting Levy Board. The Government-appointed members of the levy board are expected to have skills relevant to the work of the board, which this year included trying to reach agreement on the levy payable by bookmakers.

  Mrs. McCurley has wide experience of the board's work and her commitment to its affairs is valued by the chairman and the Home Secretary.

  Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what analysis his Department has made of the relationship between the level of house burglaries in England and Wales and the levels of unemployment, since 1979; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what analysis his Department has conducted into the relationship between the level of car crime in England and Wales and the levels of unemployment since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  Work on these subjects was covered in the Home Office research study "Trends in Crime and their Interpretation" published in 1990. The study found that, once the strong effect of personal consumption growth on 530
  car crime and household burglary were taken into account, no separate relationship with unemployment could be identified.

  Bodybelts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) after what period of detention in a bodybelt a prisoner is entitled to a review of the situation;

  (2) in which prisons bodybelts are allowed to be used;

  (3) for what length of time prisoners are allowed to be detained in a bodybelt.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 14 December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the conditions governing the use of body belts.
  Prison Standing Order 3E sets out the general condittions applying to the use of force, special accommodation and mechanical restraints, including body belts, in the management of violent prisoners.
  Body belts may be used in any prisons, as an exceptional measure.
  The use of the body belt must be monitored regularly and be removed as soon a there is no longer a risk of self injury or violence. An officer must observe the prisoner every 15 minutes. The Medical Officer must medically examine the prisoner as soon as possible after the restraint is applied and certify that there are. no clinical contra-indications. The Medical Officer must personally visit the prisoner twice in every 24 hours to review the position. The Governor in charge must either personally see the prisoner before ordering the use of the body belt or immediately after and must see the prisoner at least twice in every 24 hours.
  The Standing Order also provides that the Board of Visitors must be notified of any use of a body belt as soon as it is practicable and must approve in writing any continuation of its use for a period beyond 24 hours.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether bodybelts are used in police stations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Bodybelts are not normally used in police stations.

  Deportation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many children aged under 18 years have accompanied a parent being deported from the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; and what ages those children were;

  (2) how many people, accompanied by how many children, were deported from this country in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of each of these categories received appropriate immunisations for the country to which they were travelling.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the 12 months to June 1993, about 2,600 people were removed under deportation powers. The other information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 171, what arrangements are made

  531
  for immunisation to be provided for any deportee who requests it; and what steps his Department takes to inform deportees that they and any children accompanying them are entitled to the appropriate immunisations recommended for the country to which they are travelling.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Where the deportee is detained, vaccinations would be provided, if requested, by the qualified medical staff employed at the place of detention. Otherwise, the deportee would be advised to consult his or her general practitioner.

  There are no formal arrangements for the Department to advise deportees about immunisation, but any relevant advice given by the agency issuing travel tickets would be passed on.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what proportion of deportations in the last year for which figures are available(a) a private security firm, (b) more than one private security firm, (c) the police and (d) police and a private security firm were used;

  (2) what was the total cost of employing private security firms to participate in deportations from the United Kingdom in (a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) in what proportion of deportations in the last year for which figures are available were (a) handcuffs, (b) luggage tape, (c) bodybelts and (d) other forms of restraint used; and in each case who authorised the use of such restraints.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) average, (b) highest and (c) lowest cost to public funds of a deportation from the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member with the available information.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department during how many deportations in the last year for which figures are available drugs have been offered to deportees; in what proportion of those cases the drugs were accepted; what were the drugs involved; if they were administered under the guidance of a qualified medical officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is, however, not normal practice for drugs to be offered or administered to deportees.

  Baroness Thatcher (Security)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, column 275, what was the cost of police security provided for Baroness Thatcher to sign copies of her memoirs at bookshops within the Metropolitan policing area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is a long-standing practice not to reveal the costs of security operations.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has received from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about reorganising the senior management structure of the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes. The Commissioner is, with my support, undertaking a thorough and fundamental review of the structure of the Metropolitan police. This review is also taking into account the decisions which I announced on 28 October about the recommendations of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards.

  A principal aim of the review is to release and apply the energy of senior staff to meeting operational needs. An early outcome is a proposal, which I have approved, to reduce the number of area commands within the Metroplitan police district from eight to five and to streamline the senior management structure.

  This will involve abolishing, in stages, the existing 14 deputy Assistant Commissioner posts and putting each of the five new areas under the command of an Assistant Commissioner. Only two of the existing five central Assistant Commissioner posts will remain, one to deputise for the Commissioner and carry out other functional responsibilities and a second to take overall charge of operational functions organised centrally.

  I shall bring forward proposals for necessary adjustments to existing legislation about Assistant Commissioners in the forthcoming Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.

  Fire Authority (Swansea)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which proposed combined lire authority Swansea will be included.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the light of representations, I have received in response to proposals in the White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future", of advice received from the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, and of advice received from Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services, I have decided that it would be in the best interests of operational efficiency not to split the area of the existing West Glamorgan county fire brigade between different combined fire authorities. I propose, in drawing up combination schemes under the Fire Services Act 1947, to take effect when local government in Wales is reorganised, to include the proposed new unitary authorities of Swansea and of Neath and Port Talbot in the combined fire authority which will cover Mid and West Wales. The Mid and West Wales combined fire authority will include the following unitary authorities:Cardiganshire (Sir Abertefi); Carmarthenshire (Sir Gaerfyddin); Pembrokeshire (Sir Benfro); Mid Wales (Canolbarth Cymru); Swansea (Abertawe); and Neath and Port Talbot (Castellnedd a Phort Talbot).

  The North Wales combined fire authority will include all those Welsh unitary authorities to the north of that group; and the South Wales combined fire authority will include all those to the south.

  Mr. Joseph Elliot
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached as a result of his examination of the circumstances surrounding the acquittal of Mr. Joseph Elliot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  It would not be proper for me to make any statement about the particular circumstances of this case. Nevertheless, my examination provided a useful insight into some of the general issues facing the criminal justice system. In particular, it has helped to confirm my belief in the wide-ranging programme of reform on which the Government have embarked. That programme is designed to ensure that people never have cause to feel so exasperated about crime and the response of the criminal justice system that they feel driven to take the law into their own hands; that young people in particular are deterred and helped to desist from a life style of idleness and petty crime; and that the criminal justice system as a whole works efficiently and effectively, allowing courts full and prompt access to relevant evidence. It is vital that people have confidence in the system and are encouraged to come forward to help it work better.

  Specifically on the law on self-defence, I am satisfied that the individual should always be able to defend himself, his family and his property, as long as he only uses force that is both reasonable and necessary. I am not currently persuaded that there is a need to change the law. However, I intend to study the Law Commission's recent report on offences against the person very carefully and will be interested in the public reaction to its recommendations.

ENVIRONMENT

  Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the risk benefit study carried out by Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd; what was the subject of its analysis; and if he will place its report in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  The risk benefit study was commissioned by my Department last year at a cost of £38,000 excluding VAT. The report of the study was published by Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd. under HMSO licence and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The purpose of the study was to develop a methodology for the application of risk benefit analysis techniques to the control of hazardous substances, and to demonstrate the applicability of that methodology for two particular substances.

  Housing Investment Programme
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the criteria used by regional Department of the Environment offices for determining the allocation of the discretionary part of the housing investment programme allocation.

  Sir George Young
  A list of factors that Ministers will bear in mind in allocating the discretionary portion of housing investment programme—HIP—resources was published in May, as a component of the guidance to local authorities on the 1993 HIP round. I have placed a copy of this document in the Library.

  Construction Industry Review
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to publicise the review of procurement and contracting arrangements in the construction industry by Sir Michael Latham; what plans he has to extend the review; and when his Department expects to produce a response to the Latham review.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 13 December 1993,Official Report, column 454. The construction industry and its clients are already aware of the review of procurement and contracting arrangements by Sir Michael Latham and he has received many representations from them. The terms of reference are broad and there are no plans to extend the review further. My Department will consider how best to respond to Sir Michael Latham's final report after it has been presented in July 1994, and in the light of its contents and after any necessary consultation.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 30 November,Official Report, column 494, if he will set out the criteria his Department will adopt to judge the best practicable environmental option for the long-term handling of decommissioning wastes from nuclear facilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  Decision about the management of decommissioning wastes from nuclear facilities will be taken in accordance with criteria relevant at the time.

  Temporary Accommodation
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information he has on the number of families currently in temporary accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  A total of 56,900 households for which local authorities had accepted responsibility to secure permanent accommodation were in temporary accommodation on 30 September 1993, the latest date for which a figure is available.

  This is the fourth successive quarter in which the number of households in temporary accommodation has fallen; the current figure is some 8,530—13 per cent.—less than a year earlier.

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many empty dwellings there are in England and Wales.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities in England provide estimates of the number of vacant dwellings in their area in their annual housing investment programme—HIP1—returns. On the basis of these data, it is estimated that there were around 850,000 vacant dwellings on 1 April 1993.
  535
  For information about Wales, I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for a successor to the environmental protection technology scheme; what level of finance he will make available to the body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced to the House on 7 December, there will be a new environmental technology best practice programme operated jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment. This programme will build on earlier schemes including the joint DOE/DTI environmental technology innovation scheme, previously the environmental protection technology scheme. The budget for the new programme is £16 million over five years, shared between the Departments.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the outcome of the Rural Development Commission's consultation on the designation of the rural development areas will be announced.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Rural Development Commission will be announcing the new rural development areas on 15 December. Details of the new areas and copies of the maps will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Government
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has decided to take against Warrington borough council following the notice served on the authority on 10 June under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988, in respect of ground maintenance work; and what action he has decided to take against Bradford metropolitan city council following the notice served on that authority on 10 September, under section 19A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, in respect of highway maintenance work.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has considered carefully the responses which Warrington borough council and Bradford metropolitan city council have made to the notices served on them on 10 June and 10 September respectively, and has today given directions to both authorities. The directions, given to Warrington borough council under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 and to Bradford metropolitan city council under section 19B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, require the authorities to retender the work which has been the subject of the notices and to seek my right hon. Friend's consent should they wish to reassign this work to their direct services organisations.

  Coal Extraction
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish revised planning guidelines on coal extraction; and if he will make a statement.
  536
  Mr. Baldry
  We have today published revised planning guidelines for public consultation for England and Wales. Separate consultations are being carried out in Wales. The guidelines deal with both deep mine and opencast coal and with the disposal of colliery spoil.

  As foreshadowed in the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment, on 25 March 1993, the guidelines aim to strike a balance between the economic importance of this indigenous energy resource and the protection of the environment in a way that is fully compatible with the principles of sustainable development. The draft guidelines set tough environmental tests for the industry. I am confident that, with careful planning and a sensitive approach to local concerns, they can come forward with proposals that contribute to economic growth and provide an environmentally sound foundation for the future. The guidelines are based on three broad principles:

  1. It is not the function of the planning system to seek to set national limits on or targets for any particular source or level of energy supply. Nevertheless, low-cost coal is an important indigenous energy resource and it would be against the national interest to prevent its extraction where that can be done in an environmentally acceptable way and consistent with wider environmental objectives, including the principles of sustainable development.

  2. It is also relevant to consider whether a particular proposal would itself provide national, regional or local benefits to the community to offset the disturbance occasioned during development and restoration—eg through contributing to United Kingdom employment, the clearance of dereliction or other improvements to the quality of land, the creation of nature reserves or the provision of other benefits.

  3. Mineral planning authorities should draw up development plan policies which reflect that approach and must prepare mineral local plans which carry forward those policies and indicate in detail those areas where provision is made for coal extraction and the disposal of colliery spoil, as well as those areas where working or disposal is not likely to be acceptable and where coal resources are to be safeguarded for future working. The preparation of these plans is now an urgent requirement.

  Halons
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the United Kingdom will be requesting continued production of halons in 1995 to meet essential users.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government do not believe that any production of new halons will be necessary in 1995 to meet essential uses.

  We welcome the decision of the fifth meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol not to allow any continued production of halon for essential uses in 1994. This decision reflects the success of halon banking, both nationally and internationally.

  The Government commend the work of the Halon Users National Consortium—HUNC—and would urge all halon users to join HUNC to ensure that the bank continues to be a success.

  North Sea Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the quality status report of the North sea, prepared for the signatory states to the convention on the prevention of pollution to the North sea.

  Mr. Yeo
  A pre-print version of the quality status report was considered at the North sea conference meeting which
  537
  I attended last week. However, there is still some final editing to be done before the document is published in February 1994. Copies will be placed in the Library as soon as the final version is available.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the ministerial meeting reviewing the convention protecting the North sea against pollution, held in Copenhagen on 7 and 8 December.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: The third North sea conference in 1990 decided that there should be an interim meeting of Ministers to review progress on specific questions considered at that conference. This was the meeting that took place in Copenhagen on 7 and 8 December. Ministers or other representatives from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the European Commission took part. My noble Friend Earl Howe and I represented the United Kingdom. A number of intergovernmental and international non-governmental organisations were also present.

  The first task of the meeting was to review the report on the quality status of the North sea, which is taken to include the English channel, recently completed by the North sea task force. The Ministers congratulated the North sea task force on the successful completion of the report. We agreed to refer the recommendations in the quality status report to appropriate bodies for further consideration, but identified some areas for immediate attention—including the impact of fisheries, further controls on tributyl tin, reduction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon inputs and a review of the strategy for achieving the goals set by the 1990 conference for inputs of toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative substances.

  The second topic was the impact of shipping. We welcomed the achievement through the International Maritime Organisation—IMO—on the initiative of the North sea states, of stricter standards worldwide for oil discharges from shipping, the work under way in the IMO on chemical discharges and the action being taken by the EC Transport and Environment Councils to improve the protection of the seas against maritime pollution. Further action was agreed on shore reception facilities, enforcement and air pollution from ships. On the initiative of the United Kingdom, the Ministers decided on joint efforts to achieve early agreement within the International Maritime Organisation to a convention on liability and compensation for damage caused by accidents involving ships carrying hazardous or noxious cargoes, and to review the question at the 1995 North sea conference in order to find other solutions if progress in the IMO is insufficient.

  The third topic was the input of nutrients to the North sea. The 1990 conference had called for a 50 per cent. reduction by 1995 in inputs of nutrients to areas where they were likely, directly or indirectly, to cause pollution. In the case of the United Kingdom, however, only a few estuaries in United Kingdom waters are under investigation as possible problem areas. Inputs from the continent, on the other hand, affect substantial problem areas along much of the continental coast. The meeting noted that the reductions in nitrate inputs to these problem areas by 1995 were, in general, unlikely to be achieved, mainly because of the difficulties of achieving sufficient reduction in agricultural inputs. Ministers therefore agreed on the need for the countries concerned to implement, or improve their
  538
  implementation, of all the necessary measures. One promising approach was the application of the concept of balanced fertilisation. Agreement was reached on work to define this and related concepts. It proved impossible, however, to reach agreement on the form of a commitment to their application. The United Kingdom and France considered that it was premature to set a fixed date for achieving balanced fertilisation before the concept was defined and it was clear what was involved.

  The final topic was the effects of pesticides on the North sea. The meeting concluded that much progress had been made towards the targets for the reduction of pesticide inputs set in 1990, but that for eight substances this progress was insufficient and further efforts were required. On the initiative of the United Kingdom, Ministers confirmed that measures had to address non-agricultural, as well as agricultural, uses of pesticides. The meeting also stressed the need to address all uses of pesticides causing environmental harm and to promote environmentally friendly approaches to agricultural production; steps were agreed to take all this forward.

  A copy of the statement of conclusions adopted by the Ministers will be placed in the Library.

  Office Space (Housing)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to encourage local government groups to convert unrentable city centre office space into housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: We aim to encourage the reuse of vacant office buildings for housing and to be flexible in the application of planning policies and standards. Our planning policy guidance note 3 and the draft explanatory note on affordable housing recommend that local authorities view such applications sympathetically.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to further reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from United Kingdom power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: In December 1990, the Government published the United Kingdom's programme and national plan for reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from existing large combustion plants, including power stations. Under that national plan the United Kingdom is committed to reducting sulphur dioxide emissions from existing power stations by 60 per cent. by 2003 compared with 1980 levels. A copy of the plan is available in the Library of the House. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is currently agreeing new authorisations with the generators, in accordance with the requirement of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for best available technology not entailing excessive costs to be applied to emissions from all power plant.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what savings have been achieved in the management of magistrates courts since the publication of the magistrates courts report of January 1989.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Spending on the magistrates courts service has increased every year since 1989. Neither the Government nor the service accepted the recommendation of the 1989 scrutiny of the administration of the magistrates courts that they be run as a national agency. However, the Government accepted that reform was needed and published their own proposals in the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" in February 1992. Our objectives are to provide clearer lines of accountability, to secure maximum management cooperation with other parts of the justice system and to guarantee the judicial independence of magistrates and their legal advisers, as well as to yield improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. The level of savings made will largely depend on the decisions taken by local management on the way they implement the changes.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimated savings on magistrates courts services in London will result from the decision announced in the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice".

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The purpose of the proposals in the White Paper, including any reorganisation of the service in London, is to provide clearer lines of accountability, to secure maximum management cooperation with other parts of the justice system and to guarantee the judicial independence of magistrates and their legal advisers, as well as to yield improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. As the efficiency gains which each magistrates courts committee—MCC—achieves by implementing the White Paper reforms will depend largely on decisions taken at local level, it is difficult for the Government to estimate with any accuracy the total savings to be made. However, evidence from those MCCs that have already implemented some of the White Paper's proposals suggest that, within each MCC, the resulting improvements in value for money exceed the transitional costs.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in manufacturing industries in the Greater London area on 1 November 1979 and 1 November 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Regional employment estimates are available only for March, June, September and December of each year. The numbers in manufacturing employment in Greater London were:

  Employees in manufacturing: Greater London (unadjusted)

  Number

  September 1981

  681,0001

  September 1993

  338,0002

  540
  1Employment estimates are not available for Greater London as a separate standard region prior to September 1981.

  2Latest information available.

  Fireworks
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what tests are conducted to ascertain the safety standards of fireworks which are manufactured abroad and imported into Britain.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All fireworks that are imported into Britain are required to comply with the tests set out in British Standard 7114 on firework safety. Additionally, fireworks containing certain compositions: for example, sulphur/chlorate admixtures are prohibited under the Explosives Act 1875.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment from which countries pemission to import fireworks to Britain has been refused on the grounds of safety over the last 15 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No country has been banned from supplying fireworks to Britain. Refusals are not aimed at specific countries but at products, or batches of products, that fail to meet the British Standard 7114 standard or equivalent standard. The onus is on the importer to ensure that the requirements are met. The Health and Safety Executive is not automatically informed of rejected products and, therefore, comprehensive figures are not available.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which countries are the major exporters of fireworks to Britain; what proportion of fireworks sold in Britain were manufactured abroad for each year since 1990; if fireworks that have been manufactured abroad have to meet British safety standards; and which countries which export fireworks to Britain have domestic safety standards which do not meet the safety standards for British manufactured fireworks.

  Mr. Michal Forsyth
  On the first and the second points raised, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 6 December, at column 39, and also to the letter sent to her on 9 December by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Technology. All fireworks which are imported into Great Britain have to meet the British Standard 7114 or equivalent standard. We do not have detailed information on the domestic safety standards for fireworks manufactured outside Britain.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are presently in employment due to the business start-up scheme; and of these how many places have been taken up since 16 March.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 15 August 1993, there were 34,900 participants on the business start-up scheme in Great Britian. Over the period 28 March 1993 to 15 August 1993, 15,600 people started on the scheme.

  Offshore Safety
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if all the offshore oil and gas safety cases were received by the deadline of 30 November; and if he will make a statement.
  541
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992, all existing fixed and mobile offshore installations operating on the United Kingdom continental shelf were required to submit a safety case to the Health and Safety Executive by 30 November. As at 1 December, all the expected 215 safety cases had been received; 214 arrived on or before 30 November; one was delayed in transit from Norway.

  The number of installations originally expected to be covered was 221; however, some of the safety cases received cover more than one installation; for example, unmanned installations linked to another central installation.

  One mobile installation was not expected to submit a safety case because it was due to leave the United Kingdom continental shelf before 30 November. Its departure has been slightly delayed because of operating requirements but it will be leaving shortly. It is not being asked to submit a safety case.

WALES

  Heritage
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to set up within the Welsh Office a separate department dedicated to heritage provision, including both human and natural heritage; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have no plans to do so.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many wind power stations there are in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently five operational wind farms in Wales.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the number of wind power stations in the Principality.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Care Provision
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up a monitor of continuing care provision across the country.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The need for continuing care provision is established, arranged and monitored through the local strategies for health and health plans prepared by health authorities, the social care plans prepared by local authorities and, through the Welsh strategies for the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue more detailed guidance to health authorities on future standards of continuing care and respite care for people with dementia.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance has been issued to health authorities in the form of the "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Mental Health, the Health and Social Gain for Older People" publication and the Welsh strategy for mental illness. I have no proposals to issue further guidance to health authorities at present.
  542
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review and investigate those areas in Wales where no psychogeriatric continuing care beds are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The provision of continuing care beds for the elderly mentally ill is a matter for health authorities.

  All health authorities in Wales provide continuing care beds for this group with the exception of Pembrokeshire health authority which uses patient beds provided by other agencies within Dyfed.

  It is for each health authority to make appropriate provision in line with its own assessment of local need.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the current waiting list for elective surgery at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available hospital waiting lists are for 31 March 1993, when the waiting lists for all surgical specialties at Ysbyty Gwynedd were 2,286 for in-patient treatment and 460 for day cases.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average waiting time for elective surgery at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor for the year from April 1992 to April 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The median waiting time for patients admitted from the waiting list for surgical specialties in Ysbyty Gwynedd for the period April 1992 to March 1993 was 49 days.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if all the appeals of nurses in Wales regarding their salary grading have now been determined.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. There are fewer than 100 cases outstanding at employing authority level; some 1,100 at the Welsh appeals committee level; and 228 cases at the national level. I am optimistic that recent discussions between both sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council will shortly result in new procedures for clearing all outstanding cases at the Welsh and national levels.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to health promotion campaigns in Wales; and how successful they have been.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Each year, I approve the operational plan of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and the authority reports on progress at its annual reviews conducted by the Department.

  In addition, the authority commissions a number of regular surveys to measure changes in people's behaviour. "Plans for Action 3: The Agenda for 1992–94", published in July 1992, showed progress towards meeting the targets set out in the authority's health promotion strategy, based on surveys undertaken in 1990. A further progress report will be published during 1994–95, drawing upon the results of the 1993–94 surveys. The authority is also due to publish an evaluation report of the Heartbeat Wales initiative during 1994.

  Oystermouth Square Development Scheme
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a detailed account of the progress so far of the Oystermouth square development scheme in Mumbles and the next stages of the planning process it needs to go through.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Secretary of State called in for his own determination the application for the Oystermouth square development scheme because it raised planning issues of more than local importance. A public local 544
  inquiry was arranged for 30 March 1993, but was postponed to permit the applicant to submit revised plans to take account of the line of a main sewer which would have made the original plans impossible to implement. The revised plans were submitted in June 1993 and were the subject of wide consultation and publicity. The public local inquiry opened on 23 November 1993 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of December. The inspector will then make his report and recommendation to the Secretary of State who will consider them before reaching his decision.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes in the internal structure of the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The chairman of the Welsh Development Agency announced in October that he is undertaking a comprehensive review of the agency's organisation and management structure.

  While the issues of organisation and management are essentially matters for the agency, its senior management structure is subject to approval and the agency will be submitting its proposals shortly.

  Because of the chairman's close involvement in this review and its implementation I have temporarily increased his time commitment from two and a half days per week to four days per week.

  Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will commission an update of the 1985 Welsh housing survey.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The results of the latest Welsh house condition survey are expected to be published in the spring 1994.

  Home Renovation Grants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the Council of the Welsh Districts the consequences of the introduction on 14 January of the new £24,000 ceiling on home renovation grants.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My officials have discussed the new upper limit for mandatory grants with representatives of the Council of Welsh Districts.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Dyfed, Gwent, Gwynedd and Powys(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and whether he will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 8 December 1993, at columns 237–

  Mr. Alan Trew
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the South Glamorgan health authority in relation to the compensation offer made to Mr. Alan Trew, former unit manager of the Cardiff Royal group of hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has had no consultations with the South Glamorgan health authority on this matter: this is an individual staffing issue entirely for the authority to resolve.

  Welsh Historic Monuments
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments annual report and accounts for 1992–93.
  546
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The report has been published today.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about financial provision for further and higher education in Wales in 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  I intend to make £144·403 million recurrent and £15·615 million capital grant in aid available to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales in 1994–95. This is an increase of 11·2 per cent. over provision in 1993–94. Grant in aid to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales will be £199-973 million recurrent and £22·840 million capital. Total recurrent resources for the HE sector in Wales will be 6·7 per cent. higher than in 1993–94 and capital resources 6·1 per cent. higher.

  These increases in resources will enable the universities and colleges to provide places for substantially higher number of students than the record levels achieved this year, while maintaining the quality of course provision.

  I am placing in the Library of the House copies of letters which are being sent today to the chief executive of the funding councils.

  Wales Tourist Board
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales
  what resources he will give to the Wales tourist board for 1994–95.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Additional money is being allocated to the Wales tourist board for 1994–95, which will increase the board's budget by 4 per cent. to £14·204 million.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy concerning health and safety.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply. I am advised on health and safety policy by the Health and Safety Commission, HSC.

  Government policy is to create a legislative framework and supporting safety systems which protect people from workplace risks. Within that system, the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of workers and public rests with employers and others who create those risks. The function of the HSC and the Health and Safety Executive—the HSE—is to stimulate action and to set, advise on and enforce standards. It is the Government's policy to ensure the greatest possible value for money is achieved in the work of the HSE.

  The HSC is also currently undertaking a review of health and safety legislation, designed to simplify, clarify and update it. The Government expect this to result in improved health and safety standards for workers.

HEALTH

  Non-urgent Surgery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to hold records on the names of hospitals and health authorities which have ceased non-urgent surgery; and if she will make a statement.
  547
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The organisation of workload and the delivery of contracts are matters for local managers and clinicians. There are no plans to add to the burdens of managers and other staff by requiring additional statistical returns to the centre on this subject.

  Influenza Vaccine
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has in future to ensure that there are sufficient supplies of influenza vaccine when demand increases in response to advice on immunisation given by her chief medical officer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department will continue to liaise with the influenza vaccine manufacturers each year, in advance of the issue of the chief medical officer's letter to doctors, to ensure that their production intentions are to total at least the previous year's usage plus an increment for year on year increases in uptake.

  The CMO's advice for 1993–94 was the same as for 1992–93. Doses of vaccine distributed in 1992–93 totalled just under 4-7 million. For 1993–94 they have exceeded 5 million despite the fact that a fifth of our expected supply did not become available.

  Copies of the letter, PL/CMO(93)13, will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the salary of each chief executive of each trust in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Nicotine Patches
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has received from the specialist independent sub-committee chaired by Professor Sir William Asscher on the effectiveness of nicotine patches in helping patients to give up smoking; and if she proposes to accept it.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A special committee chaired by Sir William Asscher was asked to advise on whether a decision to remove a particular nicotine patch product from national health service prescription should be reviewed. The committee advised that the product should be available on the NHS at a reduced price. After careful consideration of all the facts, including the advice of the committee, it has been decided that the supply of nicotine patches is not a priority for the use of the limited resources available to the NHS.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendations have been made in the publication "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin", on the availability of nicotine patches on NHS prescription in order to help patients give up smoking.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The drug and therapeutics bulletin of 22 November concluded, in an article about nicotine patches, that the use of"nicotine patches plus advice and support, should be provided by the NHS."

  Copies of the bulletin are available in the Library.

  Ambulance Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reasons underlie the classification of Doncaster as rural for the purpose of publishing ambulance statistics.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 November at columns 461–62.

  Continence Products
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the amount spent on continence products in each year since 1988; and what is the projected spending for 1994, 1995 and 1996.

  Mr. Bowis
  Expenditure on continence products since 1988 is shown in the table.

  Calendar Year

  Net ingredient cost £ million

  1988

  14·8

  1989

  14·0

  1990

  16·0

  1991

  20·7

  1992

  23·2

  Projected expenditure forecasts for the years 1993 to 1996 are not available.

  Notes:

  1. 1988 to 1990 data are based on a I in 200 sample and cover prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only.

  2. The data for 1991 and 1992 cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  NHS Medicines
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the grounds on which she can reject recommendations by independent expert committees, including the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs and the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances so as to make decisions on the availability of NHS medicines at variance with the expert committees' recommendations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Decisions about whether or noit products should be available on national health service prescription are made by Ministers after taking account of expert advice, including any recommendation of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs and the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances. The basis on which such decisions are made reflect the particular circumstan ces of individual products. The grounds for deciding to exclude a product from NHS prescription, whether or not this is in line with a recommendation of a committee, are always explained to the manufacturer who is given an opportunity to make representations before the final decision.

  Maintenance Backlog
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region the maintenance backlog as at 31 March.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  549
  The figures are the estimated costs, as at March 1993, of clearing outstanding repairs and upkeep required to bring the estate up to a satisfactory physical condition, and now includes an estimate of the cost required to meet statutory and safety standards.

  The figures are for all trusts and directly managed units within the regional boundaries

  Region

  Cost

  £'000

  Northern

  142,129

  Yorkshire

  125,987

  Trent

  119,383

  East Anglian

  83,462

  North West Thames

  84,049

  North East Thames

  331,467

  South East Thames

  264,256

  South West Thames

  176,176

  Wessex

  111,461

  Oxford

  89,925

  South Western

  123,605

  West Midlands

  307,229

  Mersey

  64,310

  North Western

  144,011

  Worcester Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to call for a report on the use of Concorde flights by staff of Worcester district health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such plans. This is a matter for Worcester and district health authority and the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mr. A. J. Prescott, for details.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct health authorities to ensure that their publicity on cancer screening includes a statement that those aged over 65 years are not screened routinely but can request both smear and mammography examinations.

  Mr. Sackville
  The management of local health promotion strategies is a matter for local discussion and decision.

  Drugs Company Incentives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about drug companies offering incentives to general practitioners to prescribe their products; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received a number of representations following press reports.

  The Government deplore any attempt by drugs companies improperly to influence doctors' prescribing practice and are already taking steps to tighten controls on hospitality and other inducements offered by drugs companies. Consultation has just ended on proposed new provisions which would bring breaches of hospitality norms within the scope of the Medicines Act 1968, and render offending companies or their sales representatives liable to criminal prosecution. Regulations to give effect to these proposals will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  The pharmaceutical industry in this country has a strict code of practice, probably the strictest in Europe, which
  550
  lays down very clear guidelines as to what is acceptable behaviour by sales representatives. The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority, which administers the code of practice on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, is already investigating the allegations which have been made and will report its findings to the Department's Medicines Control Agency. It will also apply appropriate sanctions where allegations are substantiated.

  Asthma
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies her Department has carried out of the effect of increasing traffic volumes on levels of asthma among children and adults.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is funding a research project which will examine the health effects, including effects on asthmatics, of the December 1991 air pollution episode in London when the highest recorded peak of nitrogen dioxide occurred.

  In addition, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution which was established by the chief medical officer last year has set up a sub-group on asthma which will investigate the relationships between air pollution and trends in asthma incidence, and will make recommendations on research relating to asthma and air pollution.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council—MRC—which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is sponsoring some research into factors contributing to the rise of asthma and has set up a working party to examine the aetiology of asthma under the chairmanship of Professor A. J. Newman Taylor. It is considering a range of possible contributory factors to current levels of asthma including air pollution. The Department is represented on the working party and on the MRC committee on toxic hazards in the workplace and the environment, both of which will consider areas of need for further research.

  St. Cross Hospital, Rugby
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has so far received about the consultation document issued by the Warwickshire health authority and the hospital of St. Cross in Rugby.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received correspondence from a number of people in the west midlands, including my hon. Friend, about this issue.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the consumer in each EC country of a prescription of oral contraceptives.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no charge for contraceptives under the national health service in the United Kingdom. Detailed information about arrangements in other European countries is not available centrally.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of elderly people living in residential care homes in North Yorkshire county council are accommodated in(a) private sector homes and (b) council-owned homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest available figures are for 31 March 1992. The percentage of residents aged 65 and over in staffed residential care homes for elderly and younger physically disabled people, in the North Yorkshire local authority were, 59 per cent. in private homes and 28 per cent. in local authority homes. The remaining 13 per cent. of residents are living in homes run by voluntary bodies.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units of accommodation are provided by residential care homes owned by North Yorkshire county council; and how many vacancies remain.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest figures available are for 31 March 1992. There were 1,797 places in staffed residential care homes for all client groups, of which 267 were not occupied.

  Neurosurgery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to her on whether the secondhand magnetic resonance imaging scanner at the Brook hospital has(a) ever been given electrical safety approval and (b) been used on a patient; and whether doctors are able to clear the backlog by using another machine.

  Mr. Sackville
  The installation and use of the MRI scanner at the Brook hospital is a matter for Greenwich Healthcare national health service trust. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Neville Thompson, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now publish the proposed oral health strategy and the White Paper on dental services; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Proposals for an oral health strategy for England and for the future remuneration arrangements in the general dental services will be announced in due course.

  Newcastle Hospitals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she proposes to give a decision on the proposals for Newcastle hospitals submitted to her by Newcastle health authority; and whether she proposes to respond in detail to the points put to her in a letter dated 26 November from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, (Mr. Cousins).

  Mr. Sackville
  I agreed to the proposals set out in "The future of health care in Newcastle" on 9 December. On the same day I wrote to the hon. Member informing him of the decision and responding to the points he made in his letter. Copies of the proposals and my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Haemochromatosis
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the numbers of British people suffering from haemochromatosis.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available on which to base an estimate.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of publicly funded research programmes studying the connection between haemochromatosis and diabetes; if she will make a statement about the results from such research; and what is the cost of programmes of research.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is not currently undertaking any such studies into the connection between haemochromatosis and diabetes.

  The main agency through which the Government conduct biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We understand that the MRC is not currently funding any research into the connection between haemochromatosis and diabetes.

  Active Termination of Life
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she proposes to take following the inquiries by Mr. Richard Turner of the western European department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office into the practice of non-voluntary active termination of life.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office today.

  Community Care Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the formula used in calculating the distribution of the special transitional community care grant to individual authorities for 1994–95.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 2 December, at column 707. The methodology of the transfer is set out in LASSL(93)19, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the top 10 sales that are categorisecl as "other" in the health and personal social services statistics for England; and if she will list the income from this category for 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  The components of the "other" category were not separately identified in the returns made to the Department. No information was available centrally for 1992 and 1993.

  Non-NHS Bodies
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1990 the expenditure on the purchase of health care from non-NHS bodies for(a) regions, (b) districts and (c) trusts.
  553
  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure on the purchase of health care from non-national health service bodies for years 1991–92 and 1992–93 is shown in the table. Figures for 1990–91 are not available centrally.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £000

  £000

  Regional Health Authorities

  32,746

  21,421

  District Health Authorities

  159,818

  187,335

  NHS Trusts

  12,204

  44,543

  Source: Annual Financial Returns of regional health authorities, district health authorities and NHS Trusts.

  Note: Figures for 1992–93 are provisional.

  Baby Foods
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1990 the income from the sale of proprietary baby foods for(a) regions, (b) districts and (c) trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  Income from the sale of proprietary baby foods, and so on for 1990–91 is given in the "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England", 1992 edition, table 2.9 as £12,657,163 In that year, only district health authorities reported an income from the sale of these goods. The information has not been collected centrally in subsequent years, in accordance with our policy of reducing the administrative burden on health authorities and national health service trusts. Copies of the health and personal social services statistics are available in the Library.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many general practitioner fundholders in Bolton(a) are and (b) are not overspent in the current financial year;

  (2) how many general practitioner fundholders in Bolton have asked that non-urgent admissions are delayed to Bolton or other hospitals; how many patients are involved; and what is the effect of this on their position on the waiting lists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected centrally. Regional health authorities are responsible for managing the general practitioner fundholding scheme in their areas.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that no patient will suffer a lack of drugs or treatment because the fundholder is overspent.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities manage any general practitioner fundholder overspends from within contingency reserves and patient care is unaffected. However, where a GP fundholder overspends because of inadequate budgetary management, the responsible regional health authority will consider the suitability of the practice to remain in the scheme.

  Car Mileage Allowances
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much car mileage allowance was claimed by NHS staff in(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) trusts and(d) the NHS as a whole for 1991–92 and 1992–93.
  554
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the expenditure on management consultants for each year since 1980 for(a) regions, (b) districts and (c) trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  The Attorney-General
  The total cost to the Department of the Government car service for Ministers for the financial year 1990–91 was approximately £120,000. Two vehicles were involved.

  Active Termination of Life
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration is being given to bringing prosecutions in those cases referred to in the statement of 11 November by Mr. Richard Turner of the western European department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a letter a copy of which has been drawn to his attention, that non-voluntary active termination of life is a practice which occurs in the United Kingdom, although it is illegal; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that the letter by the official in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office referred to by my hon. Friend was misleading and that the FCO does not have any evidence suggesting the commission of offences of unlawful killing.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in collating and publishing information on the proportion of British aid directly focused on the alleviation of poverty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 29 November, at column 313, described the Overseas Development Administration's policy information marker system—PIMS—designed to monitor performance against the seven priority objectives announced by my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, in her speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 18 October. Data from PIMS, including data on performance against ODA' s priority objective of direct poverty reduction, will appear in the ODA section of the "Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report 1994".

  Street Children
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to support the consortium of charities for street children launched by the Prime Minister on 18 November.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have indicated to the consortium our willingness to provide support, subject to appraisal, and have asked them to submit a proposal.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has taken under the United Nation's convention on the rights of the child to protect the world's street children; and what estimates he has made of how many such children there are.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom attaches importance to promoting and protecting the rights of the child. We raise human rights abuses against children with the authorities of those countries concerned. The resolutions on street children at the Commission on Human Rights and at the United Nations General Assembly this year stem from a United Kingdom initiative during our presidency of the EU in 1992.

  The Overseas Development Administration supports non-governmental organisations in their work with street children in Latin America, India, the Philippines, South Africa and other parts of Africa. We have committed over £225,000 to such projects this year. We are also supporting projects in Albania, Bulgaria and Romania through the charity know-how fund.

  Estimates of the global numbers of street children vary according to definition. Some estimates are confined to children actually living on the street while others include those who work on the street while living partly at home. The United Kingdom has not attempted to make an independent estimate.

  Grenada
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list details of existing and proposed investments by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in Grenada.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation—CDC—has a single investment in Grenada. Since 1991, it has invested £1·938 million in Liberty Club Ltd. The CDC is considering possible involvement in Grenada Electricity Services Ltd.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the practice of his Department to conduct an annual opinion poll on the public's attitude to overseas aid and development; what were the results of this survey in the latest year for which figures are available; and where they can be seen.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is not the practice of the Department to conduct an annual opinion poll on the public's attitude to overseas aid.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list by country of all projects currently being funded from the British bilateral aid programme, detailing project title, expected duration and main objectives.
  556
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Nearly 4,000 projects, many very small, are currently being funded by the Overseas Development Administration from the bilateral aid programme. It would be disproportionately expensive to list for each of them the data sought by the hon. Member.

  Aggregated information on the main objectives of projects will be published in the "Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report 1994".

  Some details of the major projects in a range of countries are available in the partners in development booklets published by the ODA. These and a list of projects funded from the know-how fund for eastern and central Europe and the former Soviet Union are in the Libraries of the House.

  Development Projects (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent details of long-term development projects submitted in support and evaluation of successful applications for funds from his Department are treated by his Department as confidential; and what access to this information is provided.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 8 December at columns 269-70. Proposals, reports and evaluations submitted to the ODA under the joint funding scheme for non-governmental organisations can be made available on request and by agreement between the ODA and the organisation concerned.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Commonwealth Development Corporation has been authorised to operate in additional countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following a request from the corporation, approval has been given for the CDC to operate in Guatemala. In pursuing investment opportunities we expect CDC to give priority to promoting private sector development.

  Population Conference
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the United Kingdom national report on population for the international conference on population and development, taking place in Cairo in September 1994.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Copies of the United Kingdom national report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  The Prime Minister
  The charge to my office for ministerial use of the Government car service during 1990–91 was £117,952. Two vehicles were involved.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are made to ensure that special advisers to Ministers in his Department Do not have access to the kind of information, and are not involved in the type of business, that would be likely to create suspicion of impropriety in relation to subsequent employment.

  The Prime Minister
  Care is taken to ensure that special advisers do not have access to the kind of information likely to create suspicion of impropriety. They are not involved in evaluating tenders or letting contracts.

  Identification Numbers
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the smallest number of separate identification numbers in use by any Government department that a person with a driving licence and a passport can have; and how many persons are employed in the various Departments of state to administer these separate registers, giving the number employed in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  A person with a driving licence and a passport would have a driver number, a passport number, a national health service number and is likely to have a national insurance number.

  Driver numbers are automatically generated by computer when a licence is issued and require no additional staff effort. The Passport Agency employs 32 people at the central records unit at Hayes whose job it is to administer passport records. National insurance numbers are issued in two ways: 70 per cent. are issued centrally by the Department of Social Security in an automated process and the remainder are issued locally. The issuing of a national insurance number and the administration of records are part of the general work of departmental staff. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys employs 180 staff at the national health service central register in Southport whose duties include administration of national health records as well as other responsibilities.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance he has given to the Minister for Local Government and Planning in relation to the announcements anticipating the Government's response to the Local Government Commission's final report on the North Yorkshire review.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 29 November,Official Report, column 325.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is Government policy to provide nursery places for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy is to promote choice and diversity of educational and other forms of provision for the under-fives, within the resources available. The scale and pattern of provision locally are matters for individual local authorities and other local providers.

  Departmental Refrigerators
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to direct all Departments of State to purchase ozone-friendly fridges when replacing existing stocks of departmental refrigerators.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment emphasised the importance of phasing out the use of ozone-depleting substances at a recent meeting of green Ministers. Information on ozone-friendly fridges was circulated to all departments in July this year. Each Department is responsible for its own environmental strategy and purchasing decisions.

  Employment Policy
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy on trying to ensure that full employment exists in Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  Economic growth and jobs are generated by businesses and their employees, not by Governments. But Governments do have a responsibility for ensuring that markets work properly and that the regulatory and tax burden on business is kept to an absolute minimum.

  The Government also have the essential task of establishing a macroeconomic framework, which provides the stability that businesses need to plan for the future. This means that inflation and public finances need to be kept under control.

  These are the policies that the Government believe will create wealth and jobs, not just in the United Kingdom, but in the European Community as a whole.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

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

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the allocation to individual programmes in Northern Ireland of the public expenditure totals announced on 30 November.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In his unified Budget Statement on 30 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced total public expenditure planning figures for the Northern Ireland programme. I have now decided on the allocations to individual programmes as shown in the table. Copies of a more detailed statement have been placed in the Library. These allocations reflect my assessment of how best to distribute the Northern Ireland public expenditure totals in response to local needs and circumstances.
  559

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  PROGRAMME

  Northern Ireland Office:

  Law, Order, protective and Miscellaneous Services

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Northern Ireland Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Services and Support

  —

  —

  —

  Industry, Trade and Employment

  —

  —

  —

  Energy

  —

  —

  —

  Roads and Transport

  —

  —

  —

  Housing

  —

  —

  —

  Environmental and Miscellaneous Services

  —

  —

  —

  Law, Order and Protective Services (Fire Service)

  —

  —

  —

  Education, Arts and Libraries

  —

  —

  —

  Health and Personal Social Services

  —

  —

  —

  Social Security Administration

  —

  —

  —

  Other Public Services

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Block (excluding Social Security Benefits)

  5,172

  5,360

  5,420

  Social Security Benefits

  2,052

  2,200

  2,330

  Northern Ireland Block

  7,224

  7,550

  7,750

  National Agriculture and Fisheries Support

  166

  190

  190

  Northern Ireland Programme

  7,390

  7,440

  7,940

  1. Figures are presented on the New Control Total basis an explanation of which was given in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement on 12 November 1992. They exclude cyclical Social Security Benefits of £544m, £580m and £610m.

  2. Figures are rounded to nearest £1m in 1994–95 and to nearest £10m in 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  3. The figures for 1994–95 will form the basis for preparation by Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office of Main Estimates for the coming year. These will be presented to Parliament in due course.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of providing cars for Ministers during the 1990–91 financial year was around £680,000.

  For most of the year, only four cars were provided by the Government car service, but this was increased to five when the number of Ministers of State increased.

  Not all Ministers had the exclusive use of a car; these costs therefore include private hire cars to supplement the five cars provided by the Government car service. They
  560
  also include the cost of cars provided on duty by the Royal Ulster Constabulary for Ministers when they were in Northern Ireland.

  Pensioners
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people of pensionable age were living in Northern Ireland during 1991, 1992 and 1993; what percentage they represent of the overall. population in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information, taken from the provisional 1991 and 1992 mid-year estimates of population, is as follows:

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  1991

  239,600

  15

  1992

  241,600

  15

  Comparable data for 1993 are not yet available.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the Ernst and Young report which was commissioned by the Industrial Development Board into the reasons why overseas companies have invested in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Ernst and Young were not commissioned to produce a report for the Industrial Development Board into the reasons why overseas companies have invested in Northern Ireland. They were used, however, by the IDB to extend the work undertaken for the Invest in Britain Bureau to produce a reference document which could help the IDB sell the Northern Ireland business opportunity in a very competitive environment. I regret that this information is for internal use only and it would not be appropriate to have the document placed in the Library.

  Arts Council
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of funding for the Arts Council in Northern Ireland; what the projected grants to the Council will be for 1994–96 and 1995–97; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  In the current financial year, funding for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland is £6·379 million. My right hon. and learned Friend has today announced the allocations to programmes for 1994–95 and I will provide further details, including the funding of the Arts Council, shortly.

  Rural Planning Policy
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding the recently published review of rural planning policy in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I announced the outcome of the review of planning policy for rural Northern Ireland on 23 September 1993. Since then the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Environment Link have asked for further information on the effect of the strategy.

  Marketing and Management
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding is available in 1993–94 for(a) the export marketing programme and (b) the graduate management development programme; and what funds he proposes to make available in 1994–95.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 10 December 1993:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the funding for the Export Marketing and Graduate Management Development Programmes in the years 1993–94 and 1994–95. As the Training and Employment Agency has responsibility for these programmes, I am writing to you directly in response.
  In the year 1993–94, £668,000 has been allocated to the Export Marketing Programme and £1,951,000 to the Graduate Management Programme.
  With regard to 1994–95, I am unable at present to provide figures for the proposed funding as the Public Expenditure Survey allocations have not been completed. However, I envisage that sufficient funding will be made available from within the overall allocation to enable the programmes to be operated at least at the current level of activity and in the light of the outcome of the imminent competitive tendering process to which both programmes are subject.
  I regret I cannot be more specific at this stage.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce an environmental protection agency to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In Northern Ireland, most of the intended functions of the proposed agency in England and Wales already lie within central Government, in the environment service of the Department of the Environment. When final details of the agency are available, I will decide whether any proposals for change in Northern Ireland should be made.

  Gaming Licences
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what restrictions currently exist governing the granting of licences to gaming and amusement establishments in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The detailed restrictions are contained in parts III and V of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and related regulations made under it. These relate mainly to the status and fitness of the applicant and to the suitability of the premises in which the business is to be conducted.

  Rural Hospitals
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many rural hospitals were operational in Northern Ireland in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Hospitals are not classified into the categories "rural" and "urban".

  Housing
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to introduce compulsory competitive tendering to housing executive management in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; what representations he has received about such proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are committed to the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for housing management. They will take some time to consider the exact form of competitive tendering appropriate to Northern Ireland, taking into account the particular local circumstances and background against which the Northern Ireland Housing Executive operates. I have received a number of representations directly and indirectly from elected representatives. It will be at least 1995 before the necessary enabling legislative provisions are in place and the normal consultative process will take place in bringing forward that legislation.

  Sinn Fein (Contacts)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what instructions or advice are or have been given to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with regard to investigations concerning leading members of IRA or Sinn Fein with whom Her Majesty's Government were in contact, on the arrest or questioning of such persons(a) during the period February to November 1993 and (b) at present.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None. Criminal investigations are entirely an operational matter for the Chief Constable.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department received on the breach of the United Nations embargo on arms sales to South Africa by the International Signal and Control company(a) from 1975 to 1986 and (b) from 1987 onwards; and whether the role of ISC in circumventing the arms embargo was brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government when ISC was bought by Ferranti.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that the alleged breaches of the United Nations arms embargo did not involve exports from the United Kingdom. The allegations were reported to the Security Council 421 committee which oversees compliance with the United Nations arms embargo against South Africa. Legal proceedings have been taken against ISC officials and others in the United States.

  Korean Peninsula
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Council of Ministers last discussed the situation on the Korean peninsula; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The European Council has not discussed the situation on the Korean peninsula in the last two years.
  563
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have consistently supported efforts to achieve this through direct contact between North and South Korea. We hope that these contacts will soon resume and make progress.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation on the Korean peninsula; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The situation on the Korean peninsula gives cause for concern. Contacts between North and South Korea to follow up their 1991 agreement on reconciliation, non-aggression, exchanges and cooperation seem to have stalled. North Korea has not co-operated with the International Atomic Energy Agency on all the necessary inspections of its nuclear facilities. North Korea's attitude has serious implications for stability in the region. We hope that early progress can be made on both these issues.

  GATT
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to make available to hon. Members copies of the renegotiated proposals for the multilateral trade organisations, prior to the deadline for the signing of the GATT Uruguay round on 15 December.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A copy of the latest draft of the multilateral trade organisation—MTO—agreement has been deposited in the Library of the House of Commons, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 1 December,Official Report, column 533. A copy of the final draft of the MTO agreement will be deposited in the House Library as soon as it is available in London.

  High Commissions and Embassies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the staffing levels and staff gradings for each British high commission and embassy in Africa in 1983; and what they are in the current year.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A comparison of staffing levels and staff gradings at FCO missions in Africa between 1983 and 1993 is given in the tables.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office staffing levels in Africa 1983 to 1993

  Country, post and grade

  1983

  Totals

  1993

  Totals

  ALGERIA

  Algiers

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 4

  1

  2

  DS 5

  1

  —

  DS 7M

  2

  3

  DS 9

  1

  3

  S 1

  1

  1

  DS 10

  2

  1

  S 2

  2

  3

  Locally engaged

  24·25

  35·25

  33·50

  47·5

  564

  Country, post and grade

  1983

  Totals

  1993

  Totals

  ANGOLA

  Luanda

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  3

  DS 7M

  2

  2

  DS 9

  1

  1

  DS 10

  1

  2

  S 2

  1

  2

  Locally engaged

  12·50

  19·50

  12·00

  23·0

  BOTSWANA

  Garborone

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  —

  DS 6

  —

  1

  DS 7M

  1

  1

  DS 8C

  1

  —

  DS 9

  2

  2

  DS 10

  1

  1

  S 2

  1

  1

  Locally engaged

  20·00

  28·00

  17·50

  24·5

  CAMEROON

  Douala

  DS 6

  1

  —

  DS 7M

  —

  1

  DS 9

  1

  —

  DS 10

  1

  —

  Locally engaged

  6·50

  9·50

  2·50

  3·5

  Yaounde

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 6

  2

  1

  DS 7M

  1

  —

  DS 9

  1

  1

  DS 10

  2

  —

  S2

  1

  1

  Locally engaged

  13·50

  21·50

  20·00

  24·0

  EGYPT

  Alexandria

  DS 5

  1

  —

  DS 6

  —

  1

  DS 9

  1

  —

  Locally engaged

  14·00

  16·00

  13·50

  14·50

  Cairo

  DS 2

  1

  1

  DS 4

  2

  2

  DS 5

  1

  5

  DS 6

  4

  2

  DS 7M

  1

  1

  DS 7D8

  1

  2

  CSO

  —

  1

  HPTO

  —

  2

  DS 8C

  1

  —

  DS 8T

  —

  1

  DS 9

  7

  8

  DS 9C

  1

  —

  DS 9T

  —

  1

  S 1

  1

  1

  SO

  5

  4

  DS 10

  3

  2

  S 2

  1

  4

  Locally engaged

  103·45

  132·45

  118·50

  155·50

  ETHIOPIA

  Addis Ababa

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 4

  1

  —

  DS 5

  1

  2

  DS 6

  —

  1

  DS 7M

  5

  1

  DS 9

  —

  2

  S 1

  1

  —

  DS 10

  2

  1

  S 2

  1

  2

  Locally engaged

  75·50

  87·50

  74·10

  84·10

  565

  Country, post and grade

  1983

  Totals

  1993

  Totals

  GAMBIA

  Banjul

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 6

  1

  —

  DS 7M

  —

  1

  DS 9

  2

  1

  DS 10

  —

  1

  S 2

  1

  1

  Locally engaged

  27·00

  32·00

  35·50

  40·50

  GHANA

  Accra

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  2

  DS 6

  —

  2

  DS 7M

  5

  3

  DS 9

  1

  1

  DS 10

  4

  —

  S 2

  1

  3

  Locally engaged

  56·00

  70·00

  90·50

  103·50

  IVORY COAST

  Abidjan

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  1

  DS 7M

  1

  1

  DS 9

  2

  2

  DS 10

  1

  1

  S 2

  1

  1

  Locally engaged

  14·00

  21·00

  13·50

  20·50

  KENYA

  Nairobi

  DS 2

  1

  1

  DS 4

  1

  2

  DS 5

  3

  3

  DS 6

  3

  3

  DS 7M

  2

  4

  DS 7D8

  1

  3

  DS 8C

  1

  —

  DS 8T

  2

  —

  DS 9C

  1

  —

  DS 9

  5

  3

  S 1

  1

  1

  DS 10

  1

  2

  S 2

  2

  4

  Locally engaged

  77·50

  101·50

  68·50

  94·50

  LESOTHO

  Maseru

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 6

  1

  1

  DS 7M

  —

  1

  DS 9

  1

  1

  DS 10

  1

  1

  S 2

  1

  1

  Locally engaged

  18·00

  23·00

  15·50

  21·50

  LIBYA

  Tripoli

  DS 3

  1

  —

  DS 4

  1

  —

  DS 5

  —

  1

  DS 7M

  3

  —

  DS 8C

  1

  —

  DS 9

  3

  1

  DS 10

  4

  —

  S 2

  2

  —

  SO

  2

  —

  Locally engaged

  37·00

  54·00

  13·00

  15·00

  MADAGASCAR

  Antananarivo

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 6

  1

  —

  566

  Country, Post and grade

  1983

  Totals

  1993

  Totals

  DS 7M

  —

  1

  Locally engaged

  10·50

  12·50

  13·55

  15·55

  MALAWI

  Lilongwe

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  1

  DS 6

  —

  1

  DS 7M

  4

  2

  DS 8C

  1

  —

  DS 8T

  1

  —

  DS 9

  —

  2

  DS 10

  2

  3

  S 2

  2

  1

  SO

  1

  —

  Locally engaged

  26·00

  39·00

  58·25

  69·25

  MAURITIUS

  Port Louis

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 5

  —

  1

  DS 6

  1

  —

  DS 7M

  1

  —

  DS 9

  3

  3

  DS 10

  1

  —

  S 2A

  —

  1

  Locally engaged

  23·00

  30·00

  22·75

  28·75

  MOROCCO

  Casablanca

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 7M

  1

  1

  DS 9

  —

  2

  Locally engaged

  11·00

  13·00

  14·60

  18³60

  Rabat

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  1

  DS 7M

  1

  2

  DS 9

  1

  —

  DS 10

  2

  1

  S 2

  2

  2

  Locally engaged

  21·50

  29·50

  17·00

  24·00

  MOZAMBIQUE

  Maputo

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  3

  DS 7M

  2

  1

  DS 7D8

  —

  1

  DS 9

  —

  2

  DS 10

  2

  1

  S 2

  1

  2

  Locally engaged

  20·00

  27·00

  24·00

  35·00

  NAMIBIA

  Windhoek

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 6

  —

  1

  DS 7M

  1

  1

  Ds 9

  —

  1

  Ds 10

  —

  1

  S 2

  —

  1

  Locally engaged

  0·00

  2·00

  5·00

  11·00

  NIGERIA

  Abuja

  DS 2

  —

  0

  DS 4

  —

  0

  DS 5

  —

  0

  DS 6

  —

  2

  DS 7M

  —

  0

  Ds 7D8

  —

  1

  DS 9

  —

  0

  S 1

  —

  0

  Ds 10

  —

  1

  S 2

  —

  1

  Locally engaged

  0·00

  0·00

  59·00

  64·00

  567

  Country, post and grade

  1983

  Totals

  1993

  Totals

  Ibadan

  Locally engaged

  5·00

  5·00

  4·00

  4·00

  Kaduna

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 6

  1

  1

  DS 7M

  1

  —

  DS 9

  3

  1

  DS 10

  1

  —

  S 2

  —

  1

  Locally engaged

  19·00

  26·00

  20·00

  24·00

  Logas

  Ds 2

  1

  1

  DS 3

  1

  —

  DS 4

  2

  3

  DS 5

  4

  3

  DS 6

  2

  1

  DS 7M

  4

  3

  DS 7D8

  2

  2

  DS 8C

  1

  —

  DS 8T

  1

  —

  DS 9C

  1

  —

  DS 9T

  1

  —

  Ds 9

  11

  5

  S 1

  1

  1

  DS 10

  3

  3

  S 2

  3

  2

  S 2A

  —

  1

  Locally engaged

  123·

  161·10

  194·00

  219·00

  SENEGAL

  Dakar

  DS 3

  1

  —

  DS 4

  —

  1

  DS 5

  1

  —

  DS 6

  —

  1

  DS 7M

  1

  —

  DS 7D8

  1

  —

  DS 9

  1

  2

  DS 10

  2

  1

  S 2

  1

  1

  Locally engaged

  24·00

  32·00

  25·75

  31·75

  SEYCHELLES

  Victoria

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 7M

  1

  1

  DS 9

  1

  —

  DS 10

  1

  —

  S 2

  1

  1

  Locally engaged

  15·50

  20·50

  14·50

  17·50

  SIERRA LEONE

  Freetown

  DS 3

  1

  —

  DS 4

  —

  1

  DS 5

  1

  —

  DS 7M

  1

  1

  DS 9

  2

  1

  DS 10

  2

  0

  S 2

  2

  1

  Locally engaged

  41·00

  49·00

  27·00

  31·00

  SOUTH AFRICA

  Cape Town

  DS 5

  1

  1

  DS 7M

  3

  3

  DS 9

  1

  —

  Locally engaged

  22·00

  27·00

  17·00

  21·00

  Durban

  DS 6

  1

  1

  DS 9

  —

  1

  Locally engaged

  11·00

  12·00

  6·60

  8·60

  568

  Country, post and grade

  1983

  Totals

  1993

  Totals

  Johannesburg

  DS 3

  1

  —

  DS 4

  —

  2

  DS 5

  2

  2

  DS 6

  1

  —

  DS 7M

  4

  2

  DS 7D8

  —

  2

  Ds 9

  2

  2

  S 2

  —

  3

  Locally engaged

  50·25

  60·25

  49·00

  62·00

  Pretoria

  DS 2

  1

  1

  DS 3

  1

  —

  DS 4

  1

  2

  DS 5

  2

  5

  DS 6

  1

  —

  DS 7M

  —

  1

  DS 7D8

  1

  1

  DS 7C

  1

  —

  DS 7T

  1

  —

  DS 8T

  1

  —

  DS 9C

  2

  —

  DS 9T

  1

  —

  DS 9

  2

  3

  S 1

  1

  1

  DS 10

  1

  3

  S 2

  3

  4

  Locally engaged

  34·10

  54·10

  30·00

  113·00

  SUDAN

  Khartoum

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 4

  1

  —

  DS 5

  —

  1

  DS 6

  3

  —

  DS 7M

  1

  1

  DS 7D8

  1

  1

  DS 9

  5

  2

  SO

  —

  1

  DS 10

  3

  1

  S 2

  2

  1

  Locally engaged

  39·50

  56·50

  39·20

  48·20

  SWAZILAND

  Mbabane

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 6

  1

  1

  DS 9

  2

  2

  DS 10

  1

  —

  S 2

  1

  1

  Locally engaged

  17·00

  23·00

  13·70

  18·70

  TANZANIA

  Dar Es Salaam

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 4

  1

  —

  DS 5

  1

  2

  DS 7M

  4

  3

  DS 7D8

  1

  1

  DS 9

  2

  2

  S 1

  1

  1

  DS 10

  2

  1

  S 2

  1

  1

  Locally engaged

  40·50

  54·50

  38·00

  50·00

  TUNISIA

  Tunis

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  2

  DS 7M

  —

  2

  DS 9

  2

  1

  SO

  —

  1

  DS 10

  1

  1

  S 2

  1

  2

  Locally engaged

  25·00

  31·00

  29·65

  39·65

  569

  Country, post and grade

  1983

  Totals

  1993

  Totals

  UGANDA

  Kampala

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  2

  DS 6

  —

  2

  DS 7M

  2

  2

  DS 9

  2

  2

  DS 10

  1

  1

  SO

  1

  —

  S 2

  1

  2

  Locally engaged

  32·00

  41·00

  51·10

  63·10

  ZAIRE

  Kinshasa

  DS 3

  1

  —

  DS 5

  1

  1

  DS 7M

  2

  1

  DS 9

  1

  —

  DS 10

  1

  1

  S 2

  1

  —

  Locally engaged

  19·00

  26·00

  33·00

  36·00

  ZAMBIA

  Lusaka

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 4

  1

  1

  DS 5

  1

  2

  DS 6

  2

  2

  DS 7M

  2

  2

  DS 8C

  1

  —

  DS 9

  4

  3

  DS 10

  2

  1

  S 2

  2

  2

  S 2A

  —

  1

  Locally engaged

  35·00

  51·00

  38·00

  53·00

  ZIMBABWE

  Harare

  DS 3

  1

  1

  DS 4

  1

  2

  DS 5

  2

  2

  DS 6

  2

  3

  DS 7M

  5

  1

  DS 7D8

  1

  1

  DS 8C

  1

  —

  DS 9C

  1

  —

  DS 9

  3

  4

  S 1

  1

  1

  DS 10

  2

  1

  S 2

  2

  3

  SO

  2

  —

  Locally engaged

  35·50

  59·50

  34·00

  53·00

  Missions closed since 1983

  SOMALIA

  Mogadishu

  DS 4

  1

  DS 6

  1

  DS 8C

  1

  DS 9

  2

  S 2

  1

  Locally engaged

  24·00

  30·00

  MALAWI

  Blantyre

  DS 9

  1

  Locally engaged

  7·50

  8·50

  GABON

  Libreville

  DS 4

  1

  DS 6

  1

  Locally engaged

  7·25

  9·25

  CONGO

  Brazzaville

  DS 6

  1

  Locally engaged

  1·50

  2·50

  570

  Country, post and grade

  1983

  Totals

  1993

  Totals

  LIBERIA

  Monrovia

  DS 4

  1

  DS 6

  1

  DS 10

  1

  S 2

  1

  Locally engaged

  19·00

  23·00

  Active Termination of Life
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the inquiries made and referred to in the statement of 11 November by Mr. Richard Turner of the western European department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that non-voluntary active termination of life is a practice which occurs in the United Kingdom, although it is illegal; and if he will identify the incidents of such murder to which the statement refers.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Having made prior inquiries of the Home Office and Department of Health, an FCO officer referred to non-voluntary active termination of life in his reply of 11 November to a letter from a member of the public. He made clear that this practice is not condoned by Her Majesty's Government.

  Deliberate killing will in the absence of a lawful defence amount either to murder or manslaughter and the perpetrator of such an act would be liable to prosecution under the criminal law. Between 1988 and 1992, four offences of homicide relating to deliberate killing of a patient by a member of the health professions were notified to the police. All four of these offences were crimes committed by the nurse, Beverley Allitt. We have no further evidence of any unlawful killing of this sort occurring in this country.

  Mr. Richard Turner
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the grade, position, and salary of Mr. Richard Turner of the western European department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; how long he has been in post; and what are his responsibilities.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Mr. Turner is a Grade DS7M officer in the diplomatic service. The pay scale for DSM7, as for HEOs in the home civil service, is from £16,000 to £20,218 per annum. Mr. Turner has been the desk officer an responsible for relations with Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in the western European department since April 1993.

  Iraq
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to gain the release of prisoners of war and other foreign detainees held in Iraq; if he will list the numbers by nationality of those prisoners and detainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have attended the two meetings in Geneva held this year between the
  571
  International Committee of the Red Cross, the tripartite commission—USA, United Kingdom and France—Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to discuss the detainees. We have also continued to raise the plight of Kuwaiti and other detainees at the United Nations whenever the Security Council reviews sanctions against Iraq. We last did so on 18 November. We will continue to do so until Iraq fulfils all its obligations under Security Council resolutions 686 and 687.

  According to the Kuwaiti National Committee for Missing and POW Affairs, there are 627 detainees in Iraq, of whom 592 are Kuwaitis and 35 other nationalities—13 Saudis, five Iranians, four Egyptians, four Syrians, three Indians, three Lebanese, one Bahraini, one Omani and one Filipino.

  One German and one Frenchman are also in detention for illegal entry. We hope they will be released soon.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will bring forward proposals for citizens of Gibraltar to be able to vote in the 1994 European Parliament elections.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We do not plan to do so. Annex II of the EC Act on direct elections of 1976 limits the franchise in European parliamentary elections to the United Kingdom.

  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treaty powers which enabled the European Parliament's trade, research and technology committee to study and spend public resources on unidentified flying objects and the possibility of aliens being present in the asteroid belt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I understand that a member of the energy, research and technology committee has reported to the Committee on research being undertaken in Europe on unidentified flying objects and related phenomena, following a European Parliament resolution on the subject. A proposal for Community research in this field has not been put forward; nor would I expect one to be unless such research were shown to be consistent with treaty objectives.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the proposal by the EC trade, research and technology committee that an organisation on the consideration of unidentified flying objects should be assigned Community status and funding will be subject to a decision of the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Commission has not made a proposal for the establishment of an unidentified flying objects research observatory. Were it to do so, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Council of Ministers would have to agree rules concerning implementation, funding and duration of the programme, in accordance with the treaty articles concerning research activities.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the EC Commission has the powers on its own initiative to give funding to the Euro-unidentified flying objects observation centre 572
  recommended by the European Parliament's trade, research and technology committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No. Detailed rules concerning implementation, funding and duration of specific Community research programmes must be agreed by the Council of Ministers. The Commission could not fund a Euro unidentified flying objects observation centre in the absence of a Council decision to do so.

  European Parliament
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost of the European Parliament in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the costs borne from United Kingdom public funds on the basis of the net contributions of member states to the European Union.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Expenditure under the European Parliament's budget for 1992, net of receipts, was 538·241 mecu, approx £419,882,000. Member states contribute to the European Community budget as a whole, not to individual programmes. The net United Kingdom contribution in 1992 was 2,387 mecu.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures are available to determine the limits of the consideration of issues by the European Parliament.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The issues considered by the European Parliament will generally be determined by its role as set out in the EC treaties and the treaty on European Union. It is for the Parliament itself to regulate its internal procedures.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  St. James's Palace
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what refurbishment, at what cost, has taken place in St. James's palace since April 1992.

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows: cleaning and repair of brick and stonework—£820,000; refurbishment of six residential apartments, including relocation of changing facilities for the yeoman of the guard-£250,000; a number of small projects including redecoration of some areas of the state apartments, external redecorations, renewal of windows, water cisterns and other minor works—£100,000.

  Total £1,170,000.

  TV (Wales)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will discuss with the Independent Broadcasting Authority and television operators how to ensure that all parts of Wales can receive all television channels originating from within Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  At present, 98·3 per cent. of the population of Wales can receive television from either a transmitter in Wales or England or both.
  573
  Responsibility for coverage of terrestrial television services lies with the broadcasters, who determine their own engineering priorities in the light of available resources, taking account of local factors and availability of frequencies. The Government do not seek to influence their judgments.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary for State of National Heritage which communities within Wales are at present unable to receive a reasonable reception of programmes transmitted by HTV, BBC Wales or S4C.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand that, in the following areas, some communities of more than 200 people may not have a reasonable reception of Welsh television services:

  Pembroke Dock

  Pontyminster

  Cwrtnewydd

  Penrhyn-coch

  Mawddach Valley

  Presteigne

  Chirk

  Llanpumpsaint

  Penstrowed

  Llanrwst

  Beffws Gwerfil Goch

  Painscastle

  Llanwddyn

  New Radnor

  Rhydargaeau

  Flint Area

  Holywell

  Ffynnongroew West

  Knucklas

  Beaumaris

  Abersychan

  Llangranog

  Erwood

  Ely (Cardiff)

  Llanfachreth

  Newcastle Emlyn

  Dovey Valley

  Llanllugan

  Citycwm

  Brechfa

  Parkmill

  Pont-Rhyd-y-Groes

  Llyswen

  Solva

  Abersoch

  Bagillt Area

  Taxpayers1liable at higher rate

  (Thousands)

  Tax rate2

  40

  45

  50

  55

  60

  65

  70

  75

  83

  Total

  1978–79

  235

  158

  86

  84

  54

  45

  32

  36

  33

  763

  1979–80

  302

  168

  108

  43

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  674

  1980–81

  334

  216

  129

  52

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  796

  1981–82

  445

  305

  170

  75

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,090

  1982–83

  435

  245

  155

  65

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  983

  1983–84

  355

  245

  140

  55

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  860

  1984–85

  380

  255

  145

  65

  85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  930

  1985–86

  380

  250

  150

  70

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  950

  1986–87

  400

  300

  210

  90

  120

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,120

  1987–88

  360

  320

  240

  110

  160

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,190

  1988–89

  1,350

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,350

  1989–90

  1,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,500

  1990–91

  1,700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,700

  1991–92

  1,620

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,620

  31992–93

  1,800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,800

  31993–94

  1,900

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,900

  1 Single people and married couples for years up to and including 1989–90, individuals from 1990–91.

  2 Tax rate applicable to earned income. This excludes any liability to the investment income surcharge for years up to 1983–84.

  3 Provisional estimates projected from the 1991–92 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  574

  Usk

  Upper Cwmbran

  Tintern

  Crew Green/Criggion

  Llandenny

  St. David's

  Caernarfon

  Newport

  Trewem

  Tonyrefail

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Knighton

  Margam

  Manafon

  Abergynolwyn

  Milford Haven

  Capel Curig

  Stepaside

  Llwyndafydd

  Ruabon

  Barry

  Caergwrle

  Mostyn/Glan-y-Don

  Llanover

  Raglan

  In all, there are some 91,000 people who cannot receive Welsh television services, but many of them, about 43,000, can receive English television services.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people faced marginal tax rates(a) including and (b) excluding national insurance payments, of (i) over 40 per cent., (ii) over 50 per cent., (iii) over 60 per cent., (iv) over 70 per cent., (v) over 80 per cent., (vi) over 90 per cent. and (vii) over 100 per cent. in every year since 1978–79, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimated numbers of taxpayers liable to income tax at rates above the basic rate are in the table. Estimates of the numbers with marginal net income deduction rates, taking account of the withdrawal of social security benefits, at or above certain levels were published in figure 19 of "Social Security: The Government's expenditure plans 1993–94 to 1995–96", Cm 2213.
  575
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1993–94 the number of basic rate and higher rate taxpayers with earned incomes above the national insurance contributions upper earnings limit, giving figures separately for(a) husbands, (b) wives, (c) single men and (d) single women and distinguishing between pensioners and non-pensioners.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates of individuals aged under 65 with earned incomes above the national insurance contributions upper earnings limit for 1993–94 are given in the table. About 20,000 individuals aged 65 or over have earnings above this limit.

  (000s)

  Individuals

  Basic rate

  Higher rate

  Single males

  260

  260

  Single females

  130

  80

  Husbands

  1,010

  920

  Wives

  100

  70

  Total

  1,500

  1,300

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for(a) April 1994 and (b) April 1995 the percentage change in after-tax incomes for each decile of the population.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The change in after-tax incomes will depend on a range of factors that will affect what happens to the gross incomes and tax payments of those in each decile and cannot reliably be estimated.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people with earnings so low that they do not pay income tax will be affected by the increases in indirect taxation announced in November's Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that there are about 3½ million individuals with some earnings who are not paying income tax. It is not possible to determine the proportion of these people who will be affected by the increases in indirect taxation announced in the November Budget.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people will be affected by his decision to reduce(a) the married couple's income tax allowance to 15 per cent. in 1994–95 and (b) mortgage interest relief to 15 per cent. from April 1995.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that 10·3 million individuals benefiting from the married couple's allowance and related allowances in 1994–95 would be affected by the restriction of these allowances to 15 per cent. in 1995–96. The restriction of these allowances to 20 per cent. in 1994–95 will affect 9·6 million individuals. A total of 10·1 million single people and married couples will be affected by the restrictions of mortgage interest relief to 15 per cent. in 1995–96.

  No account has been taken of possible behavioural changes resulting from such restrictions.

  Disability Benefit
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in the latest year for which information is available, is the total number of people in receipt of disability benefit who pay income tax; and how many pay VAT.
  576
  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that in 1991–92 there were 200,000 tax-paying recipients of attendance allowance or mobility allowance.

  This estimate is based on Department of Social Security estimates of the total numbers in receipt of each benefit and estimates from the 1991 family expenditure survey of the proportions who were taxpayers.

  The change from mobility allowance to disability living allowance and disability working allowance in 1992–93 means that information for later years is not yet available. The results of the 1993 family expenditure survey will provide data on these allowances when they are available.

  VAT is chargeable on a wide range of consumer expenditure and it seems likely that everybody has to pay some in the course of a year.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his decision not to uprate the personal allowance in 1994–95 will cost(a) 20 per cent. taxpayers and (b) basic-rate taxpayers per year; and how much not uprating the personal allowance and the higher-rate band will cost top-rate taxpayers per year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The additional tax liability for a person aged under 65 in 1994–95 compared with statutory indexation of the personal allowance and basic rate limit are as follows.

  Marginal rate of tax

  Additional tax liability

  £

  Lower

  14

  Basic

  17·50

  Higher

  103

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates will be raised by the Treasury in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97 from the freezing of personal income tax allowances; and how many more people he estimates will have to pay income tax by December 1994 as a result.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates of the revenue yield in each of the three years, compared with statutory indexation, are as follows:

  Revenue yield, £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Allowances unchanged

  430

  550

  560

  In 1994–95,no one will be brought into income tax as a result of the November Budget changes. However, about 180,000 more people will pay tax in 1994–95 compared with statutory indexation of personal allowances.

  Forward Catering Services
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to ensure that employment rights under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 are to be honoured by the successful purchaser of Forward Catering Services; if the Astra clause will be included as a condition of sale; and if he will make a statement.
  577
  Mr. Nelson
  The four companies which have been short listed as prospective purchasers of Forward understand that TUPE will apply to this transfer. All have indicated that they would be willing to give an undertaking to staff about their redundancy entitlements, although it was made clear that that would not be a condition of sale.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he(a) last attended and (b) next expects to attend a meeting of the board of directors of the European investment bank.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am a member of the bank's board of governors, not of the board of directors. Consequently, I have never attended, nor do I expect in the future to attend, any meetings of the board of directors.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of the United Kingdom's Government shareholding in the European investment bank; what proportion it constitutes of the total shareholding; what changes in its level there have been in the past(a) 10, (b) five and (c) one year; and what proposals there are to amend it in either direction.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The total subscribed share capital of the European investment bank is currently set at 57,600,000,000 ecus—£43,530,834,341*. Of this, the United Kingdom holds 11,017,450,000 ecus— £8,326,367,896*—or approximately 19·1 per cent. of the total.

  The bank's capital was fixed at its present amount on 1 January 1991, when it was doubled from its then level of 28,800 mecu. The previous increase in capital, which was the only other change during the past 10 years, occurred on 1 January 1986. At that time the capital was raised from 14,400 mecu to 28,800 mecu.

  There are at present no proposals to either decrease or increase the capital of the bank.
  *Figures converted at 30 November 1993 £/ecu conversion rate (£1=1·3232 ecu).

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now resign from the board of directors of the European investment bank.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the bank's board of directors, there can be no question of my resigning from this body. I have no intention of resigning my position on the bank's board of governors.

  Share Sales
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, column 231, if he will provide details of fees paid to underwriters associated with the share sales of British Telecom, British Gas and the regional water companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Fees paid to underwriters as part of the privatisation programme are treated as commercially confidential. Total fees paid to underwriters are quantified within the relevant National Audit Office reports published by the Comptroller and Auditor General. For the sales requested, with the exception of the BT secondary sales which were not underwritten, the total fees paid to underwriters were:578

  £million

  BT

  1984

  74·0

  British Gas

  1986

  60·0

  Water

  1989

  33·2

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, column 231, if he will provide details of fees paid to advisers and underwriters associated with the privatisation and share sales of the regional electricity boards, Powergen and National Power.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Fees paid to advisers, underwriters, and so on as part of the privatisation programme are treated as commercially confidential. Total fees paid to advisers are quantified within the relevant National Audit Office reports published by the Comptroller and Auditor General. For the sales requested, the total fees, excluding VAT, paid to advisers and underwriters up to 31 December 1991 were:

  £million

  Advisers

  Underwriters

  Regional Electricity Companies 1990

  28·8

  36·6

  Generating Companies 1991

  17·2

  14·9

  Unemployment (Costs)
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the overall cost of unemployment including all expenditure on training and all Government initiatives to reduce unemployment and also including all state support such as housing benefit, mortgage interest relief and all passport benefits paid whilst unemployed or undertaking unemployment reducing training and other programmes.

  Mr. Portillo
  The overall cost of unemployment is highly sensitive to the factors which cause that unemployment and cannot be estimated on the basis specified in the question.

TRANSPORT

  Coastal Safety, Shetlands
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what resources are currently available for port state control inspection in Shetland;

  (2) what resources were available in Shetland for ship inspection for port state control up until 22 November;

  (3) what extra resources he intends to make available for futher port state control inspections of Klondyker ships (a) off Shetland, (b) off Ullapool and (c) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The inspection resources of the east of Scotland district in which Shetland lies are available as necessary for port state control inspection in Scotland. Resources from other districts are also available as necessary. In addition to the one surveyor permanently based in Shetland, three surveyors are currently carrying out inspections in Shetland.
  579
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has given to Shetland Islands council's request for financial support for(a) radar surveillance, (b) aerial surveillance and (c) salvage provision around the coast of Shetland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I will send the hon. Member a copy of the correspondence.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all short-term measures taken by his department since the sinking of the Braer to improve safety of shipping around the coast of Shetland.

  Mr. Norris
  Measures, which applied more widely than in the Shetland islands, were implemented quickly and will remain in operation. A voluntary code produced by the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping after consultation with industry and others set out specific navigational recommendations for the routeing of ships around the United Kingdom coast.

  In addition, the Department made specific proposals to the International Maritime Organisation which entered into force on 28 November. The measures, summarised as follows, now apply to vessels of all flags:

  (a) for vessels over 5,000 gross tonnes carrying oil or other hazardous cargoes in bulk:

  (i) amended "areas to be avoided" to the north south, and west of the Shetland Islands;

  (ii) new "areas to be avoided" off the Orkney Islands and around Fair Isle;

  (b) "precautionary areas" in the northern and south-eastern approaches to Yell Sound, and in the approaches to Lerwick;

  (c) recommendations on navigation for laden tankers in the Pentland Firth;

  (d) recommendations to report to the coastguard for all laden vessels in the Pentland Firth, and off Fair Isle.

  Recommended routes will be introduced for the Fair Isle channel subject to the successful completion in 1994 of further hydrographic surveys at an estimated cost of around £2 million.

  Name

  Date

  Location

  Action

  Stasys Girenas

  22 January 1993

  In port

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies found

  Alderbaran

  25 May 1993

  In port

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies found

  Birsk

  1 June 1993

  In port

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies found

  Chernomorskaya Slava

  12 July 1993

  In port

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies found

  Pomor

  29 July 1993

  In port

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies and flag state consulted

  Chernomorskaya Slava

  3 August 1993

  In port

  Detained during fire on board

  Akvamarin

  6 August 1993

  In port

  Detained

  Kandalasksha

  31 August 1993

  In port

  Flag state informed of deficiencies following grounding

  Kandalasksha

  4 October 1993

  In port

  Detained in drydock for repair

  Klondyker Ships
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what loopholes in respect of ship safety regulation he has identified in relation to Klondyker ships inside United Kingdom territorial waters, but outside harbour boundaries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We are considering the lessons to be drawn from recent incidents involving Klondykers. The subject is also relevant to the Donaldson inquiry, which has agreed to consider submissions on the subject, and we shall want to see the report before drawing firm conclusions.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for(a) monitoring and (b) enforcing, the intermediate recommendations of the marine accident investigation branch inquiry into Klondyker ships within Lerwick harbour in respect of (1) bunker fuel and (2) maintenance of vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The inspections being carried out are monitoring bunker levels and general maintenance on each vessel. Evidence is emerging that these efforts have already brought about an improvement in the fleet in this respect. The code of practice now being prepared will specify particular requirements for bunker levels and maintenance.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he intends to submit to the EC concerning improved safety arrangements for Klondyker fleets.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend is taking action under the powers available to him in domestic legislation. We shall involve our colleagues in the European Community when that is appropriate.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by name the Klondyker ships inspected by his Department in 1993 and include date of inspection, together with details of recommendations and in each case, whether the vessel was(a) in harbour or (b) outside the harbour boundary.

  Mr. Norris
  Fish factory ships inspected in United Kingdom between 1 January 1993 and 7 December 1993 were as follows:
  581

  Name

  Date

  Location

  Action

  Kapitan Kononov

  16 November 1993

  In port

  Detained

  Mys Frunze

  22 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Dneprodzerhinsk

  23 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Petrozavodsk

  23 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Plutoniy

  24 November 1993

  In port

  Detained

  Limoza

  24 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Vasiliy Filippon

  24 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies

  Serebryansk

  24 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Pyotr Shafranov

  25 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Novocheboksarsk

  25 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies

  Dzintarkrasts

  25 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Aktinia

  26 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  President Pik

  30 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Navigator

  30 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Novator

  30 November 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Ofelia

  1 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Kazan

  1 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Aleksandrit

  1 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Sevryba

  2 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies

  Rus

  2 December 1993

  At anchor

  None

  Korunds

  2 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Kolomenskoe

  3 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies

  Zakavkazye

  6 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Aleksey Grachev

  7 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Geroi Eltgena

  7 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed Gantiadi

  Gantiadi

  7 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  Pruzani

  7 December 1993

  At anchor

  Master instructed to rectify deficiencies. Flag state informed

  582 583
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure the continued safety through inspection of the Klondyker fleet.
  584
  Mr. Norris
  A team of surveyors is currently inspecting the fleet of Klondykers anchored off Lerwick to ensure, in particular, their safety at anchor. Other marine districts will inspect Klondykers as and when they enter ports in their area.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department have indemnified Norwest-Hoist Construction Ltd. in respect of(a) compensation payments should the M11 link road contract be cancelled or delayed and (b) the costs of security on site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  In common with other construction contracts let by my Department, the usual Institution of Civil Engineers conditions of contract apply. These provide that claims may be made for actual loss incurred through delay. This contract also provides for specific and contingency security measures, the cost of which is included in the contract price.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what studies have been carried out by his Department of the impact of the M11 link road in generating additional traffic to neighbouring areas; and if he will publish the results;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the likely increase in traffic volume along the Al2 Eastern avenue as a result of the building of the M11 link road for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Norris
  During construction of the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 link road, temporary traffic management measures may mean that traffic will be diverted from present routes, and increase in some areas. There could be extra traffic on A12 due to removal of waste and delivery of materials.

  The long-term aim of the link road is to remove traffic from existing roads and so provide the opportunity for traffic-calming measures in neighbouring areas.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what purpose his Department employs the private security firm of Norwest Holst in connection with the M11 link road.

  Mr. Norris
  Norwest Holst Ltd. is a civil engineering contractor and as such is the main contractor for contract 4 of the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 link road. Among the contractor's duties are the maintenance of the security of their sites and workings.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what private security firms have been employed by his Department in connection with the M11 link road through Wanstead.

  Mr. Norris
  Essential Security Services have been employed to safeguard unoccupied properties in the Department's ownership.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has received the Price Waterhouse report on the potential privatisation of part of the Vehicle Inspectorate; and when he expects to make an announcement;

  (2) what proposals he has for separate legislation to privatise the testing side of the Vehicle Inspectorate.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend received this report only recently and is considering its findings. He will make an announcement on future plans for the Vehicle Inspectorate's testing function, and legislative implications, in due course.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy towards the expansion of regional airports in the light of the planning applications submitted by Liverpool airport and Manchester airport.

  Mr. Norris
  The recent runway capacity in the south-east report shows that there are better prospects for growth in traffic at regional airports with a greater range of direct services becoming available than is the case for airports in the south-east. This is good for travellers. We are encouraging local authority-owned regional airports to involve the private sector in their development plans.

  The application for Manchester airport was called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment in October and will be for joint decision by him and the Secretary of State for Transport. In view of this quasi-judicial role it would not be appropriate to comment on the proposal. Consideration of Liverpool airport's recent application is a matter in the first instance for the local planning authorities.

  Home Working
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) by region, (b) division and (c) office location all home working initiatives operating in his Department and the grades involved.

  Mr. Norris
  At present, this Department has no staff working wholly from home. From time to time, temporary local arrangements are made to allow individuals who have health or other difficulties to work part of the week from home, but central records of these arrangements are not kept.

  Salvage Tugs
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to introduce legislation to ratify the International Maritime Organisation convention on salvage tugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  It is the Government's intention that legislation should be introduced which will enable ratification of the international convention on salvage 1989 at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Asthma
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has carried out of the effect of increasing traffic volumes on levels of asthma among children and adults.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of Health is funding research into the health effects of air pollution, including those relating to asthma.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are made to ensure that special advisers to Ministers in his Department do not have access to the kind of information, and are not involved in the type of business, that would be likely to create suspicion of impropriety in relation to subsequent employment.
  587
  Mr. MacGregor
  Special advisers in my Department are appointed following consultation with and approval from the Prime Minister and the Treasury. They have direct access to me and stand outside the departmental hierarchy.

  Special advisers in my Department are members of the the civil service and have the same conditions of service and are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants except that they are not subject to the business appointment rules, when they leave the Department. Their terms of appointment include the following:
  "All civil servants owe duties of confidentiality and loyal service to the Crown. These require civil servants to exercise care in the use of official information which they acquire in the course of their official duties and to protect information which is held in confidence."

  Their appointment letters also draw attention to the rules governing the use of official information and related activities and those governing participation in outside activities involving the use of official information or experience and the general principles of conduct to which all civil servants are expected to adhere at all times.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names and job descriptions of each special ministerial adviser employed in his Department showing any particular outputs for which each adviser is responsible.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I currently employ two special advisers in the Department of Transport.

  Mrs. E. F. Laing has been my special political adviser in this Department since 13 April 1992.

  Sir Idris Pearce has been employed as a part-time special adviser on property matters concerned with British Railways privatisation since 16 June 1992.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of projects undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory in Crowthorne were instigated by direct commercial or industrial demand in 1980, 1990 and 1993.

  Mr. Key
  Percentage of projects undertaken on a commercial basis by the Transport Research Laboratory.1979–80 No records but probably 0 per cent. as TRL's resources were fully committed to DOT and ODA.
  1989–90 5 per cent. of projects—40 projects—producing 2 per cent. of income—£600,000.
  1992–93 21 per cent. of projects—150 projects—producing 5 per cent. of income—Key£2 million.

  Parking
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to combat the problem of parking on pavements.

  Mr. Key
  While there is a general ban on parking heavy goods vehicles on the pavement, parking other kinds of vehicles there is banned only where it is prohibited by a local Act of Parliament, as in London, where it contravenes a traffic order made by the local traffic authority, or if the vehicle is parked in a dangerous or obstructive position. Responses to the consultation document "Curbing an Abuse", which we published in 1987, showed that a complete ban would not be practical. It would create severe difficulties for many local traffic authorities, and the police do not have the resources that would be necessary to enforce it effectively.
  588
  I accept that the current situation is not entirely satisfactory, but expect it to improve as local authorities take on responsibility for parking enforcement under the arrangements in the Road Traffic Act 1991.

  In addition, we are about to publish guidance detailing the engineering measures available to local traffic authorities to prevent vehicles mounting the pavement. Such measures have the advantage that they are largely self-enforcing.

  M1
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold discussions with the relevant local authorities and other interested parties in the area covered by the scheme to widen the M1 between junctions 28 and 32.

  Mr. Key
  These proposals are generally at an early stage. Opportunities will be offered for discussion throughout their progress and there will be other occasions for comment, as usual.

  Goods Vehicle Licensing
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the organisations that were invited to submit comments on his consultation paper on the deregulation of goods vehicle operator licensing;

  (2) if he will list the names of the individuals and organisations who also responded to his consultation paper on the deregulation of goods vehicle licensing.

  Mr. Key
  Sixty-three representative organisations were invited to submit comments to the consultation document. I am placing a full list of the organisations in the Library. Fifteen of them responded to the consultation.

  In addition I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer of 27 October, Official Report, column 542, which gives the main organisations that replied. It is not our normal practice to publish the names of individuals who have responded to consultation exercises of this sort.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often utility emergency vehicles exempt from goods vehicle operator licensing have to be used for emergency work to gain an exemption.

  Mr. Key
  There are no minimum levels of use to qualify for exemption.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reasons for the difference between vehicles exempted from goods vehicle operator licensing and exempt vehicles as listed in the "Annual Abstract of Statistics 1993", page 191 table 10.5; and how it is possible to accurately count exempt vehicles in table 10.5 but not to supply information on the number of vehicles exempt from goods vehicle operator licensing.

  Mr. Key
  The table referred to concerns vehicle licensing rather than operator licensing, and the exemptions mentioned are those for vehicles requiring licensing but exempt from the payment of vehicle excise duty, VED. The records kept by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of licensed vehicles show whether or not they are exempt from VED, so it is possible to count such vehicles. There are no records of vehicles not subject to operator licensing.
  589
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now carry out a study into whether vehicles exempt from goods vehicles operator licensing are more or less likely to be involved in accidents than licensed vehicles; and if he will collect accident statistics in such a way that those accidents involving exempt vehicles are easily distinguishable.

  Mr. Key
  The number of exempt vehicles over 3·5 tonnes is estimated to be relatively small compared to the total vehicle population. I have no indications that they are disproportionately involved in accidents. Collecting data on accident rates as proposed would be expensive and I do not regard it as justified.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the definition of a local authority weights and measures vehicle; and for what reasons such vehicles are exempt from goods vehicle operator licensing.

  Mr. Key
  For the purposes of goods vehicle operator licensing, it is a vehicle which is being used by a local authority for the purposes of the enactments relating to weights and measures or the sale of food and drugs. We see no need for operator licensing for minor categories of vehicles, unlikely to pose safety or other problems.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to extending goods vehicle operator licensing to electrically propelled vehicles.

  Mr. Key
  We are currently reviewing the list of exemptions from operator licensing and will consider both whether to add additional categories such as electrically propelled vehicles or to exempt further categories.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if recovery vehicles exempt from goods vehicle operator licensing have to be used solely for recovery work to gain exemption.

  Mr. Key
  Yes.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if vehicles used to carry materials for road and motorway construction are exempt from goods vehicle operator licensing if used for other work; and if he will consider extending operator licensing regulations to such vehicles.

  Mr. Key
  The exemption applies to trailers only, in cases where they are not constructed primarily for the carriage of goods but are being used incidentally for that purpose in connection with the construction, maintenance or repair of roads. This exemption would for instance cover trailers incorporating road-building machinery which carry specialised road-building materials in order to perform their functions. We are currently reviewing the list of exemptions.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if ambulances operated by private sector companies are exempt from goods vehicle operator licensing.

  Mr. Key
  Yes, so long as they are used for ambulance purposes.

  City Centre Motor Races
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory requirements and assurances he requires before granting approval for a city town centre formula 2 motor race.
  590
  Mr. Key
  Section 12 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits races or trials of speed on public ways. However, the Birmingham City Council Act 1985 allows Birmingham city council to close specified roads on specified dates for motor racing purposes.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision has been made in the Government's public spending plans for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 for expenditure on the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have made provision for public expenditure of £40 million in 1994–95, £20 million in 1995–96 and £10 million in 1996–97. Total expenditure on the project in this period will be substantially greater, and will be made up by funding from the private sector following the appointment of the private sector promoter.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision has been made in the Government's spending plans for the substantial public sector support for the channel rail link to which he committed the Government in his statement of 22 March.

  Mr. Freeman
  Substantial public sector support will be provided by making British Rail's European passenger services subsidiary part of the project, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 11 November. Whether any further support is required, and if so its amount and timing, will be determined by the results of the competition to select the private sector promoter.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what portion of the provision for public expenditure on the channel tunnel rail link during 1994–95 to 1996–97 is intended to cover the compensation that the Government will have to pay to owners of properties affected from January 1994 when the route is safeguarded.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision required for property purchase will depend upon the route chosen and the terms adopted for property purchase. The Government are giving careful consideration to these issues in the light of Union Railways' 29 October report and the comments received from consultees. We intend to make a statement next month.

  Tracker Devices
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make the fitting of tracker devices to cars mandatory.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Roads, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public consultation his Department has had during the last 12 months with boroughs in the Greater London area where major road development projects are under discussion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has included the appropriate London boroughs in the public consultations which have been held in the last 12 months on the following major road development projects:
  591
  M25 Junctions 15-16 link road proposals;
  Heathrow Terminal 5 Access M25 Spur Road and M4 Junctions 3 to 4b improvements;
  A2 Kidbrooke Park Road interchange improvement;
  A13/A112 junction improvement;
  Blackwall Tunnel 3rd crossing proposal, and
  Heathrow Access and Southwest London Quadrant Study (HASQUAD)

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the new roads building programme for the Greater London area that has been approved and for which funding has been allocated by his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  New starts on national road construction for 1994–95 will be announced in the new year.

  Trans-European Road
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to providing an environmental impact assessement of the trans-European road from Felixstowe to its final destination in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Key
  An environmental impact assessment will be undertaken in accordance with the normal procedures for any new road scheme which is proposed within the United Kingdom along this route if it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

  Marchioness Disaster
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will name the persons who were responsible for the report on the Marchioness disaster together with their official positions, experience and qualifications.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: The report is that of the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents, Captain P. B. Marriott. Prior to his appointment as chief inspector, Captain Marriott worked in the shipping industry for 33 years and is a fully qualified and experienced master mariner.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what relevant facts he now has in his possession, or have been drawn to his attention, which in his opinion are additional to those set out in the report of the marine accident investigation branch concerning the Marchioness disaster.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure by the MAFF pesticides safety directorate on registering and monitoring the use of pesticides under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, and what was the total income from fees charged for all approval submissions and the levy on United Kingdom sales, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Soames
  In the financial year 1992–93, the total expenditure by the MAFF pesticides safety directorate on 592
  registering and monitoring the use of pesticides under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 was £6·7 million. In the same year, the total income from fees was £0·5 million and the levy on United Kingdom sales was £6·2 million.

  Days-at-Sea Restrictions
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she intends to take in the light of the decision by the High Court to refer the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations' application for judicial review of the Government's days-at-sea policy to the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Jack
  The hon. Member will be aware of the recent High Court judgment in the NFFO's judicial review proceedings. The court, while noting that there is total agreement on the need to prevent overfishing of certain stocks, has concluded that there are various points of Community law which it felt unable to resolve without a reference to the European Court of Justice.

  My right hon. Friends and I have considered carefully how to proceed in this situation. We have weighed on the one hand the pressing need for conservation action. On the other hand, we must recognise that the effect of the reference is to cast doubt on the operation of the scheme in the meantime. We have concluded that the most straightforward course is to suspend the implementation of days at sea restrictions pending the European Court's judgment—which we shall seek to have expedited.

  Days-at-sea controls are one element of a package of measures designed to conserve the stocks and meet our Community targets, while securing value for money. Other elements are various new licensing rules and a £25 million decommissioning scheme.

  Those fishermen whose bids have been accepted under the decommissioning scheme will receive their grants, provided that, in accordance with the scheme, they scrap their vessels and submit the necessary documentation to the Ministry before 1 March 1994.

  Beyond that we need to review the way forward and as a first step I shall be speaking to the EC Commissioner about what needs to be done. I shall also speak to the industry. And I shall present further proposals to the House in due course.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list all the land owned in Lancashire by the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 13 December 1993.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the effect on the freedom to roam on Forestry Commission land of decisions to be made following the report of the Forestry Review Group.

  Mr. Jack
  We have asked the forestry review group to ensure that, in carrying out its work, it takes full account of the need to safeguard existing public benefits such as access and recreation. When the group's report is received this aspect of its findings will be looked at very carefully indeed.
  593
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and if she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire:

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Bedfordshire

  798

  Berkshire

  512

  Buckinghamshire

  2,075

  Gloucestershire

  10,376

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information requested on the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Hertfordshire, Kent, Surrey and Wiltshire(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and if she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]: The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in Hertfordshire, Kent, Surrey and Wiltshire.

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Hertfordshire

  567

  Kent

  3,676

  Surrey

  1,627

  Wiltrshire

  3,955

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information requested on the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for Sherwood will receive an answer to his questions of 25 November relating to the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Michael Jack
  I answered the hon. Member's questions on 13 December.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and whether she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.
  594
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire:

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Cheshire

  948

  Cumbria

  26,508

  Lancashire

  1,816

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information requested on the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Hereford and Worcester, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and if she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in Hereford and Worcester, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire.

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,072

  Oxfordshire

  632

  Shropshire

  4,612

  Staffordshire

  4,501

  Warwickshire

  639

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information requested on the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dioxins, Derbyshire
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information her Department has as to which geographical area the dioxin contamination on the farm closest to the Coalite works in Derbyshire is spreading.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry has undertaken further studies of dioxins in cows' milk from farms in the Bolsover area of Derbyshire. Milk taken from five farms in September was tested, including milk from the farm in question. In all cases the levels of dioxins found were lower than in similar samples taken in 1991 and 1992, indicating that the degree of contamination in the area is continuing to decrease. There is no evidence that the original contamination is spreading.

  Mr. Skinner
  ; To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will now publish the research undertaken by her Department which follows on from the third report on dioxins in Derbyshire; and if she will make a statement.
  595
  Mr. Soames
  A summary of the results of the September survey of dioxins in milk from farms in the Bolsover area of Derbyshire was published in the November edition of the MAFF food safety directorate information bulletin. An explanatory note giving full details of the survey was also made available on request. The small amount of research data obtained recently is currently subject to statistical analysis and the results will be published in due course. All other data from our research in the Bolsover area has been published in line with our earlier commitments.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken by her Department to study and limit the continuing dioxin contamination on the farm closest to the Coalite works in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Soames
  Dioxins in milk from suckling cows on this farm are falling, but are still in excess of a maximum tolerable concentration of 0·7 ng TEO/kg set by the Ministry and the Department of Health. This milk is not produced for human consumption and there is no direct risk to human health from the milk. The Ministry will continue its surveillance programme on dioxins in milk from this and other farms in the area to monitor the situation. This will ensure that no milk supplied for human comsumption contains unacceptable concentrations of dioxins.

  Milk Industry
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make it her policy not to allow Milk Marque to retain responsibility for national milk records, animal health data and livestock improvements.

  Mr. Jack
  The Milk Marketing Board's reorganisation scheme contains the board's proposals for the transfer of certain of its assets to Milk Marque. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales have yet to decide whether to approve the reorganisation scheme under the terms of the Agriculture Act 1993.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will direct the Milk Marketing Board forthwith to cease to use its funds and staff and those of its subsidiaries to recruit members for Milk Marque.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend has no powers so to direct.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide an estimate of the funds and total staff time of both the Milk Marketing Board and its subsidiary organisations which have been employed on touring farms to recruit milk producers as members of its successor, Milk Marque.

  Mr. Jack
  I have no basis on which to make such an estimate.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of milk producers' assets vested in the Milk Marketing Board have so far been expended by the Milk Marketing Board in establishing Milk Marque; and with those permission these funds have been employed.
  596
  Mr. Jack
  The EC Commission has approved, as a state aid, expenditure by the Milk Marketing Board on the establishment and promotion of Milk Marque totalling about £1·5 million.

  Illegal Fishing
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the best estimated number of British fishing vessels that are illegally fishing in United Kingdom waters in contravention of either licensing arrangements under the Sea Fish Licensing Order 1992—SI, 1992 No. 2633—as varied by SI 1993 No. 188 and SI 1993 No. 2291, or registration arrangements under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

  Mr. Jack
  It is impossible to estimate the numbers of vessels that are fishing without licences or while unregistered. Any that come to light will be investigated. The Sea Fish Licensing Order 1992 came into force on 13 November 1992. Since that date, we have taken no prosecutions for fishing without a licence nor for contravention of registration arrangements under the Merchant Shipping Act, but one case is pending.

  Cormorants
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications her Department has received in the last 12 months for licences to control cormorant numbers on English fisheries; and how many of these have been approved.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: From 1 December 1992 to 30 November 1993, 49 applications for licences to shoot cormorants were received and 23 licences were granted.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures she is taking to retain the EC moratorium on the use of BST; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make it her policy to secure a seven-year moratorium on the use of bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: The United Kingdom has always taken the view that the final Community decision on BST should be based on the scientific criteria of safety, quality and efficacy, taking account also of the need to avoid international trading problems, to encourage Community based research industries and to maintain the competitiveness of the Community's agriculture and food based sector. We are considering very carefully the European Commission's recommendation for a ban on the marketing and use of BST against these criteria, and taking into account the representations we have received both for and against a ban, before coming to a view on the matter.

  Bananas
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessments he has made of the effectiveness of the new banana régime in benefiting the
  597
  banana farmers in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, with particular relevance to the eastern Caribbean; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The new regime has only been in force for a few months and the Community market is taking time to settle down. We hope for a greater degree of stability once the system enters its first full year in January 1994. I am being kept fully aware of developments in the United Kingdom and Community markets and am meeting representatives of the Caribbean Banana Exporters Association next week.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will announce the 1994–95 grant-aided expenditure figures for each Scottish local authority.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the 1994–95 grant-aided expenditure figures for each Scottish local authority.

  Mr. Lang
  The GAE figure in respect of each local authority for 1994–95 is set out in the table. Each authority's allocation of the GAE total has been determined having regard to the client group methodology which is agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance. The table excludes figures for urban programmes GAE which is not allocated to individual authorities. The addition of this amount, £63·4 million, brings the GAE total to the previously announced sum of £5,260·1 million.

  GAE 1994–95

  Regions and Islands

  (£000s)

  Borders

  96,686

  Central

  229,442

  Dumfries and Galloway

  136,603

  Fife

  291,319

  Grampian

  421,408

  Highland

  206,839

  Lothian

  599,587

  Strathclyde

  2,051,153

  Tayside

  343,594

  Orkney

  27,678

  Shetland

  28,823

  Western Isles

  43,266

  Total

  4,476,400

  GAE 1994–95

  Districts

  (£000s)

  Berwick

  2,205

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  4,020

  Roxburgh

  4,133

  Tweeddale

  1,758

  Clackmannan

  7,287

  Falkirk

  18,594

  Stirling

  12,854

  Annandale and Eskdale

  4,062

  Nithsdale

  6,765

  Stewartry

  2,870

  Wigtown

  3,567

  Dunfermline

  17,741

  Kirkcaldy

  20,110

  North East Fife

  10,182

  598

  Districts

  (£000s)

  Aberdeen

  29,242

  Banff and Buchan

  11,813

  Gordon

  10,795

  Kincardine and Deeside

  7,138

  Moray

  11,947

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1,561

  Caithness

  3,144

  Inverness

  7,559

  Lochaber

  2,520

  Nairn

  1,235

  Ross and Cromarty

  6,319

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,688

  Sutherland

  1,897

  East Lothian

  12,184

  Edinburgh

  62,789

  Midlothian

  10,563

  West Lothian

  20,488

  Argyll and Bute

  10,306

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  5,523

  Clydebank

  5,549

  Clydesdale

  8,284

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  8,246

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  5,866

  Cunninghame

  19,028

  Dumbarton

  10,336

  East Kilbride

  11,010

  Eastwood

  7,393

  Glasgow

  125,469

  Hamilton

  14,142

  Inverclyde

  11,910

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  10,510

  Kyle and Carrick

  15,778

  Monklands

  14,754

  Motherwell

  19,586

  Renfrew

  28,969

  Strathkelvin

  11,429

  Angus

  13,032

  Dundee

  25,747

  Perth and Kinross

  18,395

  Total

  720,293

  All Scotland Total

  5,196,693

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to publish a report on drinking water quality in Scotland in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  A report has been published today by the Scottish Office Environment Department which gives an overview of drinking water quality in Scotland in 1992. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The report shows that drinking water quality in 1992 has improved since 1991 as a result of the action taken by authorities to deal with water quality problems. In 1992, 98·4 per cent. of all regulatory determinants met the prescribed standards compared with 98 per cent. in 1991. Reported data also showed that for 45 out of 55 numerical standards, 99·7 per cent. of analytical results complied; this is very similar to the results achieved in 1991.

  The failures to meet quality standards fully did not represent a risk to public health.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to answer the questions from the hon. Member for Hamilton relating to Greater Glasgow health board tabled for answer on 2 December.

  Mr. Lang
  The honourable Member's questions were answered on Wednesday 8 December—Official Report, column 285—and today, 14 December.

  Intensive Care Units
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill may expect an answer to her questions for written answer on 1 December relating to intensive care units.

  Mr. Stewart
  The honourable Member's question was answered on 9 December 1993, column 353.

  Hunterston
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for documents held in the Scottish Record Office, currently subject to the 30-year rule, on the subject of steelwork and terminal facilities at Hunterston to be made available for early inspection.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: In accordance with the changes to the criteria governing the closure and retention of files announced in the White Paper on Open Government (Cm 2290), the files in question may be made available for inspection subject to prior approval on a file-by-file basis by the Scottish Office. Such access would also be subject to a commitment on the part of inquirer that any material extracted from the files would be cleared by the Department prior to its delivery, publication or broadcast.

  Hospital Services, Glasgow
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the arrangement between Greater Glasgow health board and the Bon Secours hospital for the treatment of patients requiring non-urgent cosmetic surgery, with particular reference to determine(a) whether this work could have been done within the national health service, (b) how much Dr. Peter Summers will be paid, (c) how much the additional plastic surgeon in Canniesburn hospital will be paid, (d) what was the amount of the successful bid from Bon Secours hospital and what was the amount of the next lowest hid and (e) how many patients to be treated at Bon Secours are on Greater Glasgow's health board's waiting list, and how many from other health board areas.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: The answers to points (a) and (e) are set out later. The other points raised over commercial arrangements between the Greater Glasgow health board and the provider. I have arranged for officials of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department to write to the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board to invite him to look into these issues and to respond direct to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill.

  (a) Canniesburn hospital recruited an additional consultant plastic surgeon and would therefore be able to
  600
  treat an extra 800 patients. However, to deliver the waiting time guarantees to all the long waiters more patients would need to be treated and therefore the board sought to establish whether other providers could meet this need. The pre-tendering stage of the competitive tendering exercise carried out by the Greater Glasgow health board attracted 43 expressions of interest from 25 private sector and 18 national health service would-be providers north and south of the border.

  (e) The number of patients for whom treatment has been secured under the contract with the Bon Secours Health System are as follows:

  Residents of

  Number of Patients

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  309

  Lanarkshire

  144

  Ayrshire and Arran

  33

  Argyll and Clyde

  60

  Forth Valley

  19

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7

  TOTAL

  572

  Mr. Laurence Peterken
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date his Department was advised on the intention of Greater Glasgow health board to dismiss its general manager.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: Officials of the Scottish Office learned very late on 2 November that it appeared that Greater Glasgow health board had dismissed its general manager. Formal notification was received on 3 November 1993.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payment has been offered to Mr. Laurence Peterken in compensation for leaving Greater Glasgow health board prematurely; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: No payment has been made to Mr. Peterken.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what day Mr. Lawrence Peterken was offered a post with the national health service executive board.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: Mr. Laurence Peterken was offered the post of special projects director on 12 November 1993.

  Court Hearings
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of initial hearings in(a) the Crown courts and (b) in sheriff courts were heard on the scheduled date and at the scheduled time in each year since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: Among other performance targets, sheriff court staff are required to submit for the approval of their sheriff principal programmes which are designed to provide that the number of summary criminal trials adjourned due to lack of court time do not exceed 5 per

  601
  cent. of the total number of trials set down. This target was introduced in 1988; and the percentage of sheriff courts meeting the target in the subsequent years is as follows:

  Per cent

  Year to 31 March 1989

  91

  Year to 31 March 1990

  91

  Year to 31 March 1991

  86

  Year to 31 March 1992

  86

  Year to 31 March 1993

  87

  Information on performance against this and the other targets for the sheriff courts is published annually following the commitments given in the justice charter for Scotland.

  Judges
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to methods of making the appointment of judges more open and democratic; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: The procedures adopted for making judicial appointments are kept under constant review. These procedures are designed to identify in respect of each vacancy the best-fitted candidate. They were recently extended, on a trial basis, by inviting applications for two current vacancies on the shrieval bench through an intimation in the Scots Law Times.

  Angling
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are employed in angling-related occupations, including those employed in the manufacture and sale of angling equipment, hotels, river keepers, gillies and persons involved in sea angling; how many(a) salmon and grilse, (b) sea trout, (c) brown and rainbow trout, (d) coarse fish and (e) sea fish were taken by anglers in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and what is his estimate of the latest value of such items to the Scottish economy.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 December 1993]: The only statistics collected by my Department on these subjects relate to salmon and grilse, and sea trout. The rod and line catches over the last three years are as follows:

  Surpluses on DLO/DSO activity in 1990–91

  Local authority

  New construction >£50,000

  New construction <£50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure services management

  Aberdeen DC

  —

  —

  966,479

  —

  —

  144,863

  12,571

  —

  —

  3,877

  745,816

  3,211

  —

  Angus DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  61,269

  —

  41,694

  —

  —

  172,187

  33,578

  —

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35,704

  —

  10,247

  —

  —

  5,996

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute DC

  —

  —

  -81,000

  —

  —

  4,000

  —

  24,000

  —

  —

  6,000

  6,000

  —

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21,805

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23,888

  —

  —

  Banff and Buchan DC

  —

  —

  40,570

  —

  —

  10,730

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35,016

  10,985

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  —

  —

  8,501

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16,184

  —

  —

  Berwickshire DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,050

  —

  42,652

  —

  —

  42,652

  —

  —

  Borders RC

  —

  —

  —

  616,000

  —

  —

  81,000

  —

  7,000

  —

  —

  15,000

  —

  Caithness DC

  —

  —

  20,611

  —

  —

  79,041

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  90,856

  Central RC

  -32,574

  —

  95,238

  224,923

  -3,332

  —

  —

  —

  150,839

  -17,156

  —

  12,741

  —

  Clackmannan DC

  —

  —

  97,000

  —

  —

  1,000

  4,000

  1,000

  —

  —

  12,000

  —

  11,000

  Clydebank DC

  —

  —

  95,718

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clydesdale DC

  —

  —

  -37,555

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,585

  —

  —

  116,549

  —

  —

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  —

  —

  36,686

  —

  —

  50,656

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14,020

  -38,495

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley DC

  —

  —

  40,059

  —

  —

  38,418

  —

  18,473

  —

  —

  3,659

  —

  —

  Cunningham DC

  —

  —

  49,000

  —

  —

  17,850

  402

  13,248

  —

  —

  3,870

  —

  —

  Dumbarton DC

  —

  —

  327,855

  —

  —

  75,098

  -7,299

  —

  —

  —

  34,442

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  —

  —

  -50,075

  -408,666

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47,000

  —

  23,000

  48,000

  —

  Dundee DC

  12,116

  108,901

  206,961

  —

  —

  —

  2,669

  —

  —

  —

  366,147

  —

  —

  Dunfermline DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  214,631

  —

  —

  —

  —

  413,462

  100,458

  —

  East Kilbride DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  73,749

  —

  84,529

  —

  —

  20,661

  —

  —

  East Lothian DC

  —

  —

  89,923

  —

  —

  —

  -3

  96,813

  —

  —

  33,574

  —

  —

  Eastwood DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,413

  84,563

  64,265

  —

  —

  14,058

  —

  —

  602

  Salmon and Grilse

  Sea trout

  1990

  71,646

  27,830

  1991

  62,450

  27,500

  1992

  82,897

  34,315

  An independent consultancy report prepared for the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highland and Islands Development Board in 1989 estimated that salmon angling and netting contributed £53 million to the Scottish economy annually and supported 3,800 full-time equivalent jobs.

  Direct Service/Labour Organisations
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved since 1988 on trading accounts for(a) general highway work, (b) construction and maintenance of sewers, (c) works of new construction and (d) maintenance work delivered by direct service/labour organisations in Scotland;

  (2) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved since 1988 on trading accounts for (a) refuse collection, (b) street cleaning, (c) building cleaning, (d) schools and welfare catering, (e) other catering, (f) vehicle maintenance, (g) grounds maintenance and (h) sports and leisure management services delivered by direct service/labour organisations in Scotland;

  (3) if he will list by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government Act 1988, the surpluses achieved by local authority direct service/labour organisations in Scotland;

  (4) if he will list by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, the surpluses achieved by local authority direct service/labour organisations in Scotland since 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: The information requested for financial years before 1990–91 could be made available only at disproportionate cost. The information set out in table 1 to 3 show for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 the surpluses/deficits reported for each activity to which compulsory competitive tendering relates in terms of both the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. For 1992–93 the figures provided reflect the reports for that year which have been received and processed.
  603

  Local authority

  New construction >£50,000

  New construction <£50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure services management

  Edinburgh DC

  —

  —

  158,026

  —

  —

  —

  43,810

  165,799

  —

  9,154

  106,959

  161,490

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale DC

  —

  —

  97,815

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21,447

  —

  —

  51,600

  —

  —

  Falkirk DC

  —

  —

  85,000

  —

  —

  25,000

  3,000

  9,000

  —

  —

  84,000

  10,000

  —

  Fife RC

  9,000

  9,000

  398,000

  1,286,000

  37,000

  —

  56,000

  —

  630,000

  —

  —

  24,000

  —

  Glasgow DC

  —

  159,277

  7,134,357

  —

  —

  256,168

  11,320

  105,664

  —

  —

  169,741

  —

  —

  Gordon DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,000

  —

  23,000

  —

  —

  55,000

  —

  —

  Grampian RC

  —

  —

  —

  955,000

  57,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  158,000

  18,000

  8,000

  —

  Hamilton DC

  —

  —

  -770,649

  —

  —

  —

  260

  —

  —

  —

  13,618

  —

  —

  Highland RC

  —

  —

  —

  1,132,738

  —

  —

  88,106

  —

  364,081

  —

  -84,375

  —

  —

  Inverclyde DC

  —

  —

  242,712

  —

  —

  32,533

  —

  38,233

  —

  —

  3,311

  -7,521

  —

  Inverness DC

  —

  —

  78,221

  —

  —

  134,725

  —

  73,045

  —

  —

  -10,494

  -1,740

  —

  Kilmarnock and Loudon DC

  —

  —

  191,542

  —

  —

  52,323

  3,442

  25,735

  —

  135

  31,270

  —

  —

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -2,484

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76,172

  —

  —

  Kirkcaldy DC

  —

  —

  -234,472

  —

  —

  25,511

  947

  12,757

  —

  —

  94,728

  58,367

  —

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  —

  —

  151,699

  —

  —

  12,803

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,879

  17,848

  —

  Lochaber DC

  —

  —

  33,210

  —

  —

  25,664

  —

  25,664

  —

  —

  2,759

  —

  —

  Lothian RC

  —

  —

  36,932

  473,113

  196,077

  —

  76,048

  —

  50,013

  6,203

  —

  36,346

  —

  Midlothian DC

  —

  —

  108,000

  —

  —

  133,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  159,000

  —

  —

  Monklands DC

  —

  —

  57,690

  —

  —

  27,798

  19,025

  —

  —

  —

  5,631

  5,238

  —

  Moray DC

  —

  —

  405,564

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -122,476

  —

  —

  Motherwell DC

  —

  —

  52,128

  —

  —

  —

  —

  313,937

  —

  2,809

  56,787

  39,537

  —

  Nairn DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nithsdale DC

  —

  —

  97,976

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  North East Fife DC

  —

  —

  30,000

  —

  —

  16,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  72,000

  —

  —

  Orkney IC

  —

  10,000

  -47,000

  331,000

  51,000

  3,000

  165,000

  —

  81,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross DC

  —

  —

  112,175

  —

  —

  —

  29,696

  —

  —

  —

  48,878

  0

  —

  Renfrew DC

  —

  —

  1,157,272

  —

  —

  57,987

  —

  44,510

  —

  —

  86,718

  21,106

  —

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  —

  —

  57,000

  —

  —

  21,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19,000

  —

  —

  Roxburgh DC

  —

  —

  21,000

  —

  —

  11,642

  —

  2,067

  —

  —

  16,059

  —

  —

  Shetland IC

  —

  —

  53,000

  180,000

  —

  —

  -13,000

  —

  44,000

  —

  —

  19,000

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stcwartry DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41,556

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37,226

  —

  —

  Stirling DC

  —

  —

  70,700

  —

  —

  25,000

  —

  9,600

  —

  —

  -7,005

  2,300

  —

  Strathclyde RC

  109,518

  7,530

  544,269

  534,861

  35,350

  —

  84,983

  —

  725,277

  122,617

  27,640

  182,590

  —

  Strathkelvin DC

  —

  —

  205,692

  —

  —

  32,824

  —

  32,824

  —

  —

  -58,708

  —

  —

  Sutherland DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,281

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19,533

  —

  —

  Tayside RC

  —

  —

  5,000

  652,000

  —

  —

  110,000

  —

  473,000

  —

  —

  14,000

  —

  Tweeddale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles IC

  —

  —

  801,554

  116,619

  —

  37,697

  —

  —

  —

  6,367

  35,144

  22,475

  —

  West Lothian DC

  —

  —

  159,867

  —

  —

  13,886

  —

  13,886

  —

  —

  20,829

  2,190

  —

  Wigtown DC

  —

  —

  99,473

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21,415

  —

  —

  37,598

  —

  —

  Cumbernauld NT

  —

  —

  48,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,000

  —

  —

  East Kilbride NT

  —

  —

  -385,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glenrothes NT

  —

  —

  115,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  105,000

  —

  —

  Irvine NT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27,192

  —

  —

  Livingston NT

  —

  —

  109,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,000

  —

  —

  1 The accounts for refuse collection and other cleaning may have been combined by some authorities. The absence of an entry, therefore, does not necessarily indicate that the DSO has not carried out the activity in question.

  Surpluses on DLO/DSO activity in 1991–92

  Local authority

  New construction >£50,000

  New construction <£50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure services management

  Aberdeen DC

  —

  —

  1,240,282

  —

  —

  101,713

  5,671

  —

  —

  9,191

  472,132

  80,453

  —

  Angus DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  89,219

  10,672

  37,640

  —

  —

  109,475

  11,859

  14,377

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28,699

  —

  -24,223

  —

  —

  86,580

  —

  11,195

  Argyll and Bute DC

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  52,000

  —

  10,000

  —

  —

  22,000

  17,000

  4,000

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17,089

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,574

  —

  —

  Banff and Buchan DC

  —

  —

  50,734

  —

  —

  53,714

  2,863

  —

  —

  —

  62,133

  18,877

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  —

  —

  -17,095

  —

  —

  -66,295

  —

  -66,295

  —

  —

  -65,097

  —

  —

  Berwickshire DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48,897

  —

  42,686

  —

  —

  42,686

  —

  403

  Borders RC

  —

  —

  —

  649,000

  —

  —

  72,000

  —

  24,000

  —

  —

  42,000

  —

  Caithness DC

  —

  —

  28,479

  —

  —

  119,835

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  116,623

  Central RC

  6,586

  1,759

  230,783

  209,555

  32,766

  —

  —

  —

  230,640

  11,272

  —

  60,947

  —

  Clackmannan DC

  —

  —

  76,000

  —

  —

  65,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33,000

  -2,000

  —

  Clydebank DC

  —

  —

  115,192

  —

  —

  36,907

  —

  —

  —

  —

  140,922

  —

  50,182

  Clydesdale DC

  —

  —

  -9,742

  —

  —

  6,727

  -12,633

  9,012

  —

  —

  48,621

  —

  33,289

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth DC

  —

  —

  43,191

  —

  —

  4,811

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37,480

  930

  21,602

  Cumnock and Doon Valley DC

  —

  —

  35,329

  —

  —

  112,724

  —

  33,636

  —

  —

  5,961

  —

  1,790

  Cunninghame DC

  —

  —

  217,000

  —

  —

  16,828

  15,868

  26,455

  —

  —

  55,954

  20,016

  9,808

  Dumbarton DC

  —

  —

  -119,072

  —

  —

  96,117

  -66,438

  7,377

  —

  —

  93,801

  —

  32,798

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  —

  —

  -102,137

  261,756

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108,000

  —

  66,000

  69,000

  —

  Dundee DC

  2,922

  17,314

  666,002

  —

  —

  146,472

  2,583

  25,572

  —

  —

  144,046

  —

  58,785

  Dunfermline DC

  75,219

  38,453

  192,741

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Kilbride DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  125,871

  —

  100,161

  —

  —

  32,372

  —

  20,000

  East Lothian DC

  —

  —

  44,963

  —

  —

  161,680

  4,916

  —

  —

  —

  115,216

  —

  47,085

  Eastwood DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28,045

  81,042

  49,921

  —

  —

  6,074

  —

  12,812

  Edinburgh DC

  —

  —

  -708,635

  —

  —

  45,693

  66,747

  48,329

  —

  23

  56,041

  69,707

  45,426

  Ettrick and Lauderdale DC

  —

  —

  124,107

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60,560

  —

  —

  46,115

  —

  64,794

  Falkirk DC

  —

  —

  150,000

  —

  —

  66,000

  5,000

  114,000

  —

  —

  28,000

  9,000

  3,000

  Fife RC

  5,000

  6,000

  372,000

  279,000

  —

  —

  33,000

  —

  517,000

  —

  —

  101,000

  —

  Glasgow DC

  —

  9,789

  9,021,124

  —

  —

  1,061,873

  53,000

  466,561

  —

  71,402

  1,851,214

  96,497

  257,620

  Gordon DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17,000

  —

  23,000

  —

  —

  47,000

  —

  —

  Grampian RC

  —

  —

  —

  431,000

  21,000

  —

  —

  43,000

  130,000

  12,000

  99,000

  191,000

  —

  Hamilton DC

  —

  —

  244,114

  —

  —

  179,149

  392

  —

  —

  —

  110,187

  —

  128,153

  Highland RC

  —

  —

  —

  1,227,229

  —

  —

  159,011

  —

  289,080

  —

  —

  301,341

  —

  Inverclyde DC

  —

  —

  208,530

  —

  —

  44,196

  —

  40,074

  —

  —

  58,563

  34,949

  21,371

  Inverness DC

  —

  —

  270,135

  —

  —

  219,186

  —

  49,426

  —

  —

  143,900

  55,362

  31,815

  Kilmarnock and London DC

  —

  —

  166,413

  —

  —

  104,776

  966

  54,970

  —

  4,337

  15,344

  44,102

  9,019

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -13,113

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,781

  —

  7,367

  Kirkcaldy DC

  —

  —

  -563,702

  —

  —

  65,767

  799

  25,693

  —

  —

  397,708

  98,926

  —

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  —

  —

  163,002

  —

  —

  23,338

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65,640

  19,826

  —

  Lochaber DC

  —

  —

  87,262

  —

  —

  21,433

  —

  21,433

  —

  —

  12,716

  —

  11,745

  Lothian RC

  —

  —

  2,699

  504,004

  242,555

  —

  —

  —

  417,701

  6,329

  —

  59,310

  —

  Midlothian DC

  —

  —

  26,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  73,000

  —

  —

  246,000

  55,000

  3,000

  Monklands DC

  —

  —

  64,023

  —

  —

  31,248

  7,855

  8,826

  —

  —

  90,129

  61,845

  6,745

  Moray DC

  —

  —

  290,338

  —

  —

  37,885

  —

  27,558

  —

  —

  33,923

  42,823

  —

  Motherwell DC

  —

  —

  233,701

  —

  —

  —

  1,207

  500,293

  —

  7,224

  91,514

  91,670

  0

  Nairn DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nithsdale DC

  —

  —

  -21,364

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  North East Fife DC

  —

  —

  -176,000

  —

  —

  -24,000

  —

  38,000

  —

  —

  49,000

  —

  —

  Orkney IC

  —

  -16,000

  219,000

  89,000

  -30,000

  -6,000

  101,000

  —

  —

  70,000

  —

  14,000

  —

  Perth and Kinross DC

  —

  —

  30,207

  —

  —

  17,473

  23,767

  128,524

  —

  —

  —

  30,750

  41,927

  Renfrew DC

  —

  —

  1,155,000

  —

  —

  332,000

  —

  45,000

  -18,000

  —

  105,000

  51,000

  66,000

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  —

  —

  65,000

  —

  —

  14,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60,000

  —

  10,673

  Roxburgh DC

  —

  —

  13,000

  —

  —

  11,695

  —

  4,931

  —

  —

  76,408

  2,153

  —

  Shetland IC

  —

  —

  87,000

  573,000

  —

  3,000

  22,000

  —

  69,000

  —

  1,000

  55,000

  —

  604 605

  Local authority

  New construction >£50,000

  New construction <£50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure services management

  Skye and Lochalsh DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stewartry DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46,614

  46,614

  46,614

  —

  —

  35,984

  —

  —

  Stirling DC

  —

  —

  105,200

  —

  —

  79,900

  4,400

  16,500

  —

  —

  -245,779

  -670

  2,703

  Strathclyde RC

  3,786

  11,626

  1,306,797

  493,053

  59,180

  —

  811,218

  —

  470,820

  21,601

  395,144

  124,699

  —

  Strathkelvin

  —

  —

  118,602

  —

  —

  114,356

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37,670

  —

  58,727

  Sutherland DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,536

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12,218

  —

  244

  Tayside RC

  —

  —

  143,000

  649,000

  —

  —

  12,000

  —

  170,000

  —

  —

  134,000

  —

  Tweeddale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles IC

  —

  —

  260,443

  215,408

  —

  120,433

  39,037

  120,433

  —

  —

  38,259

  84,673

  —

  West Lothian DC

  —

  —

  104,129

  —

  —

  59,606

  —

  59,606

  —

  —

  160,790

  1,909,000

  28,302

  Wigtown DC

  —

  —

  228,159

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36,530

  —

  —

  71,321

  —

  42,333

  Cumbernauld NT

  —

  —

  49,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21,000

  —

  —

  East Kilbride NT

  —

  —

  85,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glenrothes NT

  —

  —

  25,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  105,000

  —

  —

  Irvine NT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36,754

  —

  —

  Livingston NT

  —

  —

  60,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  51,000

  —

  —

  1 The accounts for refuse collection and other cleaning may have been combined by some authorities. The absence of an entry, therefore, does not necessarily indicate that the DSO has not carried out the activity in question.

  Surpluses on DLO/DSO activity in 1992–93

  Local authority

  New construction >£50,000

  New construction <£50,000

  Building maintenance

  General highways work

  General water and sewerage work

  Refuse collection1

  Building cleaning

  Other cleaning1

  School and welfare catering

  Other catering

  Ground maintenance

  Vehicle maintenance

  Leisure services management

  Aberdeen DC

  —

  —

  276,110

  —

  —

  —

  8,882

  —

  —

  17,446

  591,314

  86,550

  443,877

  Angus DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  127,622

  17,266

  81,572

  —

  —

  194,384

  18,111

  16,139

  Annandale and Eskdale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  93,432

  —

  20,734

  —

  —

  120,687

  —

  29,294

  Argyll and Bute DC

  —

  —

  57,391

  —

  —

  2,000

  —

  25,000

  —

  —

  95,331

  11,318

  3,000

  Badenoch and Strathspey DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23,746

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28,981

  —

  —

  Banff and Buchan DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie DC

  —

  —

  28,915

  —

  —

  —

  —

  52,378

  —

  —

  98,020

  —

  5,749

  Berwickshire DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders RC

  —

  —

  —

  169,000

  —

  —

  -172,00

  —

  -51,000

  —

  —

  78,000

  —

  Caithness DC

  —

  —

  37,606

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  52,580

  —

  13,729

  Central RC

  1,378

  3,667

  49,703

  224,586

  24,535

  —

  556,453

  —

  163,181

  6,292

  —

  51,680

  —

  Clackmannan DC

  —

  —

  23,00

  —

  —

  40,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96,000

  16,000

  —

  Clydebank DC

  —

  —

  219,498

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  132,473

  —

  42,045

  Clydesdale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbemauld and Kilsyth DC

  —

  —

  57,918

  —

  —

  33,969

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,198

  15,154

  7,787

  Cumnock and Doon Valley DC

  —

  —

  55,143

  —

  —

  40,420

  —

  18,755

  —

  —

  16,753

  —

  2,973

  Cunningharne DC

  —

  —

  366,000

  —

  —

  26,092

  19,254

  18,829

  —

  —

  106,047

  3,780

  71,252

  Dumbarton DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway RC

  —

  —

  7,619

  109,780

  —

  —

  —

  406,000

  157,000

  —

  20,000

  59,000

  —

  Dundee DC

  4,667

  15,206

  430,356

  —

  —

  317,932

  2,924

  143,412

  —

  —

  250,551

  —

  72,000

  Dundermline DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21,000

  —

  —

  —

  98,428

  7,926,000

  0

  East Kilbride DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  56,939

  —

  50,313

  —

  —

  51,648

  12,627

  401,280

  East Lothian DC

  —

  —

  67,271

  —

  —

  97,577

  10,158

  —

  —

  —

  60,093

  —

  134,658

  Eastwood DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23,272

  1,142

  24,720

  —

  —

  24,881

  —

  27,187

  Edinburgh DC

  —

  —

  -448,750

  —

  —

  79,111

  63,097

  86,771

  —

  -34,966

  199,140

  100,524

  35,170

  Ettrick and Lauderdale DC

  —

  —

  19,104

  —

  —

  —

  —

  67,822

  —

  —

  54,235

  —

  66,748

  Falkirk DC

  —

  —

  325,000

  —

  —

  77,000

  4,000

  134,000

  —

  —

  305,000

  6,000

  65,000

  Fife RC

  10,000

  -358,000

  311,000

  1,000

  5,000

  —

  522,000

  —

  205,00

  2,000

  —

  19,000

  —

  Glasgow DC

  —

  —

  9,274,493

  —

  —

  914,896

  90,994

  265,576

  —

  148,629

  1,116,950

  129,212

  195,021

  Gordon DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,000

  —

  102,000

  —

  —

  57,000

  —

  —

  Grampian RC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hamilton DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  231,782

  —

  —

  —

  —

  135,682

  —

  246,906

  Highland RC

  —

  —

  —

  2,128,575

  —

  —

  295,722

  —

  465,010

  —

  391,917

  —

  —

  Inverclyde DC

  —

  —

  304,594

  —

  —

  186,367

  —

  131,010

  —

  —

  3,504

  66,154

  77,138

  Inverness DC

  —

  —

  94,194

  —

  —

  122,433

  —

  81,067

  —

  —

  66,633

  39,393

  77,582

  Kilmarnock and Loudon DC

  —

  —

  247,000

  —

  —

  125,000

  2,000

  63,000

  —

  6,000

  58,000

  32,000

  11,000

  Kincardine and Deeside DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kirkcaldy DC

  —

  —

  68,224

  —

  —

  96,192

  15,048

  59,105

  —

  —

  229,085

  142,143

  156,093

  Kyle and Carrick DC

  —

  —

  60,454

  —

  —

  —

  30,408

  —

  —

  —

  38,993

  12,963

  159,246

  Lochaber DC

  —

  —

  64,113

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,533

  —

  12,394

  Lothian RC

  —

  —

  174,313

  451,113

  161,662

  —

  166,945

  —

  47,344

  12,125

  —

  69,701

  -290,516

  Midlothian DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Monklands DC

  —

  —

  51,000

  —

  —

  67,717

  23,028

  135,366

  —

  —

  157,920

  27,410

  —

  Moray DC

  —

  —

  95,100

  —

  —

  22,025

  —

  54,647

  —

  —

  61,418

  31,030

  —

  Motherwell DC

  —

  —

  200,159

  —

  —

  —

  6,937

  516,884

  —

  21,208

  134,065

  55,824

  219,195

  Nairn DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nithsdale DC

  —

  —

  45,222

  —

  —

  700

  —

  200

  —

  —

  2,550

  —

  530,287

  North East Fife DC

  —

  —

  50,000

  —

  —

  45,000

  —

  203,000

  —

  —

  93,000

  —

  54,000

  Orkney IC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross DC

  —

  —

  67,703

  —

  —

  21,106

  26,349

  105,626

  —

  —

  —

  53,207

  147,714

  Renfrew DC

  —

  —

  748,622

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty DC

  —

  —

  96,000

  —

  —

  34,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -42,000

  —

  28,776

  Roxburgh DC

  —

  —

  10,000

  —

  —

  11,980

  —

  3,831

  —

  —

  76,574

  4,545

  30,180

  Shetland IC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sky and Lochalsh DC

  —

  —

  -45,022

  —

  —

  3,771

  4,705

  17,145

  —

  —

  -11,208

  —

  -12,007

  Stewarty DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling DC

  —

  —

  92,500

  —

  —

  71,200

  1,300

  9,600

  —

  —

  84,800

  8,900

  4,700

  Strathclyde RC

  174,602

  7,734

  787,281

  339,025

  60,302

  —

  237,407

  —

  237,808

  11,243

  41,818

  84,377

  —

  Strathkelvin DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutherland DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16,223

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43,554

  —

  7,238

  Tayside RC

  —

  —

  36,000

  1,497,00

  —

  —

  6,000

  —

  363,000

  —

  —

  102,000

  —

  Tweedale DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles IC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian DC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  99,547

  —

  —

  —

  —

  205,915

  4,135

  122,874

  Wigtown DC

  —

  —

  118,208

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23,908

  —

  —

  141,701

  —

  156,222

  Cumbernauld NT

  —

  —

  144,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77,000

  —

  —

  East Kilbride NT

  —

  —

  125,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glenrothes NT

  —

  —

  77,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  133,000

  —

  —

  Irvine NT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43,036

  —

  —

  Livingston NT

  —

  —

  89,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38,000

  —

  —

  1 The accounts for refuse collection and other cleaning may have been combined by some authorities. The absence of an entry. therefore, does not necessarily indicate that the DSO has not carried out the activity in question.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the representations received from Ayrshire following the publication of his proposal to split the county 606
  into two parts in his reorganisation of local government under those who (a) support his proposal, (b) support an all Ayrshire authority and (c) support another option.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: Since publication of the White Paper "Shaping the Future—The

  607
  New Councils", a total of 43 representations about the restructuring proposals for Ayrshire have been received. One has supported the White Paper proposal; 18 a single Ayrshire authority; 12 other options; and 12 have expressed concern over the proposal without stating a preference.

  Forestry
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have been held during the past four months between the Secretary to the interdepartmental review group on the Forestry Commission and representatives of wood processing companies; what has been the context of these discussions; and what indications have been given to those companies about future contracts.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 December 1993:] Members of the Forestry Review Group have, from time to time, met representatives of a variety of organisations which have interests of relevance to its work. In many cases, these discussions have been held on a confidential basis at the request of the organisations.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to collect information on the political affiliation of appointees to national health service trusts.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: No. Such information has no relevance to the contribution of appointees to the work of NHS trusts, although I did invite the leaders of all the Scottish parliamentary parties in July 1992 to submit nominations for trust membership.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether rules allow for an enterprise allowance to be granted to an applicant who also takes up a loan guarantee scheme loan.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No national restrictions exist to prevent applicants from receiving assistance under both schemes.

  Tributyl Trioxide
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity and value of imports, exports and re-exports of tributyl trioxide into, and from, the United Kingdom in the year of the risk benefit study.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is not available as TBTO is not separately identified in the classification of overseas trade statistics.

  Innovation Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to maintain a post of chief adviser on science and technology; and to which official he intends the innovation unit to report.
  608
  Mr. Heseltine
  I will make an announcement in due course.

  Communications Technologies
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research the Government have conducted on self-trunking technologies in radio communications with a view to requiring less burdensome individual regulations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government recognise the value of self-trunking technology in radiocommunications particularly as this could reduce the need for individual frequency assignments. A number of existing standards—such as CT2—cordless telephones—DECT—digital European cordless telecommunications—and DSRRdigital short range radio—are based on self-trun king principles.

  There are technical problems associated with the use of self-trunking for longer range services. The Radio-communications Agency has undertaken studies on the application of self-trunking for private mobile radio services and further work is being commissioned as part of the agency's programme of research to promote efficient use of the radio spectrum.

  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made towards eliminating the need for licences in the case of low-power radio devices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Much progress has been made in eliminating the need for licensing these devices. The statutory instrument "The Wireless Telegraphy (Short Range Devices) (Exemption) Regulations 1993"—SI No. 1993/1591—consolidated previous such regulations and lists the 16 major categories of devices which are licence exempt. Other licensed services are continually reviewed as candidates for exemption.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcies were registered by the Insolvency Service for each year since 1986 for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each standard region; and if he will express these figures as a proportion of the total numbers of enterprises in each case.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Details of the number of company and personal insolvencies are compiled for England arid Wales as a whole, and for Northern Ireland and Scotland. This information is given in the table. However, it should be noted that a minority of personal bankruptcies do not relate to the failure of enterprises. No regional breakdown of insolvencies in England and Wales is available.

  Estimates of the number of enterprises are made by DTI for the United Kingdom as a whole. None was made in 1987, and 1992 figures are not yet available. The table gives these data and expresses the number of insolvencies as a proportion of the number of enterprises. No breakdown of the number of enterprises below United Kingdom level is available.
  609

  Insolvencies of Enterprises in the United Kingdom

  United Kingdom enterprises (000s)

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Total United Kingdom insolvencies

  Per cent. Insolvencies

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)

  (3)

  (1)

  (2)

  1986

  2,481

  14,405

  7,093

  511

  437

  132

  193

  22,771

  0–92

  1987

  n/a

  11,439

  6,994

  456

  808

  165

  135

  19,997

  n/a

  1988

  2,806

  9,427

  7,717

  396

  1,401

  116

  162

  19,219

  0·68

  1989

  2,888

  10,456

  8,138

  428

  2.301

  144

  238

  21,705

  0·75

  1990

  2,834

  15,051

  12,058

  470

  4,350

  128

  286

  32,343

  1·14

  1991

  2,696

  21,827

  22,632

  616

  7,665

  181

  366

  53,287

  1·98

  1992

  n/a

  24,425

  32,106

  670

  10,845

  173

  404

  68,623

  n/a

  (1) Company compulsory liquidations and creditors' voluntary liquidations.

  (2) Individual bankruptcy orders. Note that a minority of personal bankruptcies do not relate to insolvencies of enterprises.

  (3) Sequestrations (equivalent in Scottish law to bankruptcy orders).

  Additionality
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received during 1993 in support of adherence to the principle of additionality in allocating European Community funding.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I and my ministerial colleagues have received a number of such representations. In all cases, we have been able to give the assurance that the United Kingdom adheres to the principle of additionality.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional support he intends to allocate to North Devon for economic development in the light of the Government's proposal to run RAF Chivenor down to a care and maintenance programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Both Barnstaple and Ilfracombe travel-to-work area—TTVVA—in which RAF Chivenor is located and the Bideford TTWA were designated as intermediate areas in August 1993. Since 1 August 1993, the Department of Trade and Industry has received six formal requests for regional selective assistance from applicants in north Devon which has already resulted in four offers of assitance. In addition, my officials are talking to several other companies about possible projects. The Government have also proposed to the EC that north Devon should be included in the objective 5(b) programme for Cornwall and Devon.

  North Devon will benefit from its share of the £736,779 which was recently allocated to Devon and Cornwall under the Konver programme; indeed, one of the projects which has been approved relates specifically to a "one-stop shop" to help people dependent on RAF Chivenor to find alternative employment.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Her Majesty's Government provided Euratom with(a) system performance demonstration documents and (b) commissioning worksheets for the THORP plant, as part of the establishing of safeguards plans by Euratom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Documents on safeguards implementation are supplied in confidence by British Nuclear Fuels plc to the parties concerned.

  Euratom
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information Her Majesty's Government provided to the European Commission, pursuant to article 78(2) of the Euratom treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. It is for the operators of facilities using source or special fissile materials to provide information to the European Commission in accordance with article 78 of the Euratom treaty.

  Granby Street Post Office, Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and members of the Granby Street Post Office Campaign Group before the Christmas adjournment to discuss the closure of the local post office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The decision to close Granby Street sub-post office is an operational matter for Post Office Counters Ltd. and follows the decision of the sub-postmaster to resign. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to discuss the matter with the hon. Member and the Granby Street Campaign Group.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the criteria of(a) social responsibility and (b) profitability have been applied to the closure of the Granby street post office, in Liverpool.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A major factor in the planned closure of the Granby Street sub-post office in Liverpool is the wish of the proprietor of the privately owned business to resign, following repeated robberies in recent years, and the absence of suitable applicants to take over this office. The Post Office has therefore decided to relocate the nearby Lodge lane premises to larger premises some 600 yards from the existing Granby street site. This will accommodate the volume of business transacted at the two sub-post offices.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had about the proposed closure of the Granby street post office, Liverpool 8, from the Liverpool city council, the Post Office Users Advisory Committee, local councillors and clergymen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In addition to representations from the hon. Member, my right hon. Friend the President of the
  611
  Board of Trade has received representations from the Liverpool Riverside constituency Labour party, Granby Labour party, Liverpool money advice support unit, Emmanuel holiness church, Princess Park health centre, Princes Park housing co-operative and the Granby Street post Office Campaign.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the representations which have been sent to the Post Office opposing the proposed closure of Granby street post office, Toxteth, Liverpool 8.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Post Office informs me that it has received representations about the proposed closure of Granby Street sub-post office in Liverpool from the following representatives, bodies and organisations:

  Granby Street Campaign Group

  Emmanuel Holiness Church

  Granby Labour Party

  Robert Party MP

  Cllr. J. Rossington St. Michael's and Dingle Ward

  Adullam Homes Housing Corporation

  University of Liverpool

  Princes Park Health Centre

  Methodist Church: Liverpool South Central

  Cllr. G. Ben-Tovim

  English Churches Housing Group

  Liverpool Riverside Constituency Labour Party

  Liverpool Money Advice Support Unit

  Ponsonby Neighbourhood Centre

  Liverpool Federation of Council Tenants and Residents Associations

  Educational Opportunities Initiative in Liverpool 8

  Age Concern Liverpool

  Granby Liberal Democrats

  Princes Park Housing Co-operative Ltd.

  Cllr. P. Clein

  Father N. Postlethwaite

  Trafford Activities Group

  In addition, letters have been received from 46 members of the public.

  Post Office (Closures)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what appeal machinery is open against the closure of a post office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are used for the closure of post offices in inner city areas.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The criteria used by Post Office Counters Ltd in considering the closure of post offices on the resignation of a subpostmaster or subpostmistress in urban areas are the proximity of other post offices; the difficulty customers would face in reaching another office; the amount and type of business done; the ability of nearby offices to absorb additional work and the likely future development of the area.

  Offshore Operators
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to ensure that offshore operating companies are required to have insurance cover to indemnify them against the costs of fines associated with health and safety prosecutions when applying for operating licences; if he will ensure that such requirements are built into licence conditions; and if he will make a statement.
  612
  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Collieries
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of collieries operated by(a) British Coal and (b) others immediately prior to the restructuring date specified in the Coal Industry Bill.

  Mr. Eggar
  The operation of collieries is a matter for British Coal Corporation and independent coal producers.

  Civil Nuclear Plants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to combat terrorist threats to civil nuclear plants.

  Mr. Eggar
  Strict physical protection measures which follow international recommendations are in force and these are kept under regular review to ensure their continuing effectiveness. It is Government policy not to disclose the detail of the measures which are taken.

  Electricity Imports
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library copies of all correspondence and written agreements which he and his Department have had with Electricité de France or with the French Government about the import of electricity.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: The Government are not a party to the agreements governing trade in electricity between Britain and France, which are summarised in the coal review White Paper, Cm 2235, from paragraph 7.95. Since the publication of the White paper the Government have had further discussions with the French authorities on the non-leviable status of electricity imports from France, the transparency of the French energy market, and access for British generators to export electricity to and through France.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the Patent Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 10 December 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 9 December 1993, Official Report, column 348.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his Department's assistance to small firms to achieve BS5750 standards.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: BS5750 is a voluntary standard and the decision to seek certification is a matter for individual companies. However, help for small firms to achieve BS5750 is available through my Department's enterprise initiative consultancy scheme under which DTI will pay up to half the cost of specialist help lasting up to 15 days. Also, the relevance of the standard and its relationship to total quality management and company competitiveness is

  613
  highlighted in the "Managing in the 90s" programme; an awareness programme promoting an integrated approach to best management practice.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total annual amount of public funds that is used to underwrite small firms finance loans through the banks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: The net cost of the scheme for the period April 1982 to March 1993 was £185·5 million, shown below by financial year. No figures are available for the period June 1981 to March 1982.

  £m

  1982–83

  10·8

  1983–84

  27·2

  1984–85

  32·9

  1985–86

  27·1

  1986–87

  11·3

  1987–88

  3·6

  1988–89

  3·8

  1989–90

  5·6

  1990–91

  16·5

  1991–92

  27·5

  1992–93

  19·2

  National Measurement System
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department's expenditure was on the national measurement system in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93; what is the comparable forecast expenditure for the succeeding three years; and what is the comparable planned increased expenditure from 1991–92.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: My Department spent £41·2 million on the national measurement system in 1991–92, and £42·2 million in 1992–93. We expect an outturn of £42 million for 1993–94. The budgets for the following two years have not yet been finalised.

  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been received from industry calling for the national physical laboratory and the national measurement system to be retained and adequately funded; and what account will be taken of those views.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 December 1993]: The CBI and the instrumentation and control trade association, GAMBICA, have made clear their support for my Department's objective of providing a well-founded measurement infrastructure as an underpinning factor in UK competitiveness and the importance they attach to its continuation. A number of companies have made similar points to my Department. These views will be fully taken into account as we develop our policy in the area. My Department also engages consultants to canvas a wide range of opinion in industry on the appropriate areas of work under the national measurement system when the various programmes funded by the Department come up for renewal.

EDUCATION

  Hasmonean Preparatory School
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to determine the application by Hasmonean prep school to become voluntary aided.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce a decision shortly.

  Educational Performance, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what initiatives he plans to take to improve educational performance in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Parents and pupils in London, as elsewhere, are benefiting from the Government's policies on the national curriculum, local management, and self-governing status for schools. The new four-yearly independent inspection cycle will enable us to monitor standards and take effective action where individual schools are proving inadequate.

  Truancy
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to reduce the level of truancy in schools.

  Mr. Patten
  Parents are responsible in law for securing their children's regular attendance at school and local education authorities are responsible for ensuring that they do so. The Department is supporting the work of LEAs and schools in this area under the reducing truancy programme of the grants for education support and training scheme. In 1993–94, projects are being funded in 71 LEAs to a value of £9·6 million.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about his Department's policy on truancy.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend expects local education authorities and schools to make maximising attendance one of their key tasks. To help them, the Department is currently supporting projects to a value of some £9·6 million in 71 English local education authorities under the reducing truancy component of the grants for education support and training scheme 1993–94.

  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each local education authority(a) the school population, (b) the number of prosecutions for truancy in the latest available year and (c) the average truancy rate for schools, excluding independent schools, in each area.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested on the school population and average rate of unauthorised absence for each LEA is published in the "National Unauthorised Absence Tables 1992–93", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on the number of prosecutions for truancy is not collected centrally.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with the Student Loans Company regarding the ability of former students to repay their loans.

  Mr. Boswell
  I and my officials have frequent discussions with the Student Loans Company about a wide range of issues, including matters relating to the repayment of loans.

  Nursery Education
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will meet the Association of County Councils to discuss the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has not received any recent request from the Association of County Councils for a meeting to discuss nursery education. Department for Education officials are periodically in touch with the association on educational matters.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to extend the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm).

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage more schools to develop the use of sixth forms.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend intends shortly to publish a framework of criteria to guide his future decisions on proposals for new sixth forms. The extension of choice and diversity will have a central place in this framework as well as need, effectiveness and cost.

  School Uniforms
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to make uniforms compulsory in schools.

  Mr. Patten
  The Government believe that school uniforms can help foster a sense of responsibility and encourage high standards and good behaviour, but it is for individual governing bodies to decide whether to require the wearing of uniforms by their pupils. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has no plans to make uniforms compulsory in maintained schools.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about Government proposals to remove automatic funding for student unions and student welfare services.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has had about his proposals regarding student unions.
  616
  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received about 3,000 representations since he announced the Government's proposals for student union reform on 1 July. Our proposals provide for core students union services, including welfare, to be available to all students and supported with public funds, where universities and colleges choose to provide those services in that way.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in Hampshire; how many have voted against grant-maintained status; and how many further applications there are.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are currently 25 self-governing schools in Hampshire and a further five which have been approved for self-governing status and will join the sector in January. One school has an application in the pipeline having voted yes. Six schools have returned a no vote in parental ballots to date, but one of these re-balloted and is self-governing. One school is due to hold a ballot before Christmas.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the staffing implications for schools and local education authorities in implementing the draft code of practice for special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  The draft code of practice, which reflects expert advice and seeks to codify existing good practice, is presently subject to extensive consultation. My right hon. Friend and I will consider all representations received during the consultation process before laying a revised version of the code before Parliament.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning his proposals for the financing of educational research through the Teacher Training Agency.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have received some 60 representations on this issue from a wide range of bodies. Our proposals will be given full parliamentary scrutiny during the passage of the Education Bill which last week was given a Second Reading in another place.

  Parental Choice
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on parental choice of school.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All parents have the right, in accordance with the principles of the parents charter, to express a preference for a choice of school. In an estimated 90 per cent. of cases that preference is met. The Government's policies aim to extend choice and diversity throughout the education system.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy towards recruitment and retention of senior staff in his Department.
  617
  Mr. Boswell
  Most senior appointments in the Department are filled by internal moves and promotions or by staff transferring from other Departments. The Department for Education's personnel policies aim to retain and develop staff to do the work which is required in a Department of this size.

  The Government's response to the recommendations of the recent efficiency unit report on career management and succession planning, due in the spring, will have a bearing on future arrangements.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to introduce a corporate levy as a means of funding expansion in higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have no plans to do so. As announced in his statement at the time of the unified Budget on 30 November, my right hon. Friend has decided that the current level of participation in higher education, which is close to the target for the end of the decade, can be funded through an adjustment in the sharing of the overall cost of student maintenance between taxpayer and students.

  Technology Grants
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what criteria Stratford school was judged in its successful bid for a technology grant; what other schools in Newham made a bid; and which were successful.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Bids for awards under the technology schools initiative, including the one from Stratford school, were judged on behalf of the Department by a team of professional technologists using the same national criteria. In the two years in which TSI awards were made, Newham local education authority put forward three bids on behalf of its schools. The bid from Sarah Bonnell school was successful.

  School Day
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the length of the school day in, each European Union state; and what evidence he has about the link between the length of the school day and standards as achieved by students in each EU country.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Comparable information on the length of the school day in other countries is not held centrally. Some relevant information can be found in the National Foundation for Educational Research's 1992 report "Learning Mathematics and Science: The Second International Assessment of Educational Progress in England", a copy of which is in the Library. Further information will be available in a forthcoming Eurydice publication, "Organisation of School Time in Member States of the European Community", which is expected to be published by the end of the year.

  Initial work carried out in my Department indicates on average a small but statistically significant positive correlation between the length of the taught week—as opposed to the length of the school day or week—and educational performance as measured by public examinations and national tests.
  618
  Details of relevant research carried out in other EU member states are not held centrally.

  Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to review the position of corporal punishment in local authority schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from parents requesting the reintroduction of corporal punishment into local authority schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend receives occasional representations from parents and others on the subject of corporal punishment, both for and against its reintroduction in maintained schools.

  Greater London Schools
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools he has visited in the Greater London area since his appointment as Secretary of State.

  Mr. Patten
  Since April 1992, I have visited eleven schools in the Greater London area. These are the Archbishop Tennison Secondary School, Croydon; Bishop Thomas Grant Secondary School, Streatham, Lambeth; Chingford Hall Primary School, Waltham Forest; Compton Secondary School, Finchley, Barnet; Greenvale Primary School, Croydon; The Hague Primary School, Tower Hamlets; Hasmonean School, Barnet; Islamia Primary School, Brent; Marymount International Secondary School, Kingston; Mulberry School for Girls, Tower Hamlets, and Wimbledon College, Merton.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total budget for the Further Education Funding Council for 1992–93 and for 1993–94; and what is the planned budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The figures requested for grant to the Further Education Funding Council are as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £million 1994–95 (planned)

  Recurrent

  24·5

  2,549·2

  2,679·5

  Capital

  —

  151·8

  157·0

  TOTAL

  24·5

  2,701·0

  2,836·5

  The funding made available in 1992–93, prior to the establishment of the new further education sector on 1 April 1993, provided transitional funds to help institutions prepare for independence and to meet the costs of establishing the council.

  Sex Education (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what academic studies he has consulted on the effects on children of sex education in primary schools; and if these studies showed the effects on children of this age to have been beneficial or detrimental and over what period.
  619
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Research findings in this area show that the majority of parents support the provision of some form of sex education in primary school, but the evidence for its effects is inconclusive. We believe that in this sensitive area the decision whether, and from what age, to offer sex education in maintained primary schools is best left to the discretion of the governing body of each school and that parents should have the right to withdraw their children from sex education if they so wish.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total budget for the Higher Education Funding Council for 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what is the planned budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England assumed responsibility for funding universities and colleges in England from 1 April 1993. The planned capital and recurrent grant for the council announced in the Budget is £2,789 million for 1993–94 and £3,418 million for 1994–95. The latter includes compensation for the reduction in publicly funded tuition fees in 1994–95.

  School Inspection
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the revision of the OFSTED framework for school inspection will be complete; what the policy for inspection of religious education will be; what the proposals are for the inspection of sex education within the framework; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Inspections of schools under the Education (Schools) Act 1992, are required to report on the quality of education and standards achieved, and that in curricular and other matters, schools meet legal requirements.

  The detailed content of the framework for inspection is a matter for Professor Sutherland.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to my hon. Friend.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total budget for grant-maintained schools for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and what is the planned budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is set out in the table.

  1992–93 (outturn)

  1993–94 (estimated outturn)

  1994–95 (projected outturn)

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Total Spending on GM Schools1

  485

  1,150

  2,000

  1 Figures include annual maintenance grant, which is recovered from local authorities, special purpose grants and capital grants.

  2 Actual spending will depend on the number and size of grant maintained schools.

  Exam Results
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to publish schools' GCSE and A-level results by chronological age rather than by school year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 1993 school and college performance tables show the examination results of students at schools and further education sector colleges by age group only. My right hon. Friend will give further consideration in due course to this and other issues relating to the future publication of comparative tables, and will be consulting interested parties.

  Schools Visits, Bolton
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education who issued the invitations to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools to visit Bolton schools on 2 December; who was informed of the visit; and if he will set out the protocol for informing the local authority of future ministerial visits to Bolton.

  Mr. Forth
  I visited a number of schools in Bolton at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). The programme for my visit was organised by my hon. Friend's office and I was very happy to follow it. The authority was informed of my forthcoming visit by a headteacher of one of the schools involved. If visits are arranged by my office, it is normal practice to involve the local education authority from the start.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to make students responsible for meeting any or all of the costs of tuition fees; what is the time scale for these plans; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what estimates his Department has made of the debt students are likely to incur during each year of their academic studies if they are required to take out additional loans to pay tuition fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's plans for higher education were set out in the Budget. Public funding will be over £4·6 billion next year. The costs of higher education will in future be shared more fairly between graduates and the taxpayer by accelerating the shift in the balance of student maintenance support from grant to loan. The Government will continue to reimburse tuition fees through the mandatory awards system up to specified maximum levels. We have no plans to make students contribute to tuition fees.

  Voluntary-aided Schools (Transport)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will take steps to prevent local education authorities from withdrawing financial assistance towards transport from children in voluntary-aided schools on purely denominational grounds.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government attach importance to the preservation of the opportunity to choose a school in accordance with religious convictions. Since 1 October,
  621
  local education authorities have been obliged to have regard, in considering whether or not to provide a child with free school transport, to—among other things—the parent's wishes for him to attend a school of the denomination to which the parent adheres.

  Fitzherbert School, Brighton
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what legal and other expenses were incurred in acquiring and disposing of the site of the former Fitzherbert school, Brighton.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has reimbursed the CTC Trust some £91,300 for expenses connected with acquiring and disposing of this site.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on the operation of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Between April 1993 and November 1993 the Department of Social Security headquarters and the Child Support Agency headquarters received in the region of 6,400 written representations covering a range of views about child support policy and Child Support Agency operations.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Child Support Agency to take into account, when deciding maintenance payments, the costs of an absent parent's contact with their child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The assessment formula used by the Child Support Agency allows for essential expenses. To make allowances for specific items of expenditure would be to give these costs precedence over a child's basic maintenance. Most absent parents will retain between 70 per cent. and 85 per cent. of their net income after paying maintenance.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown of the representations received regarding the operation of the Child Support Agency on the basis of(a) sex of the applicant and (b) region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 November, col. 429]: The information given was incorrect. The Department received in the region of 6,400 written representations about child support, and not 3,000 as previously stated.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate for 1993–94 of the numbers of(a) men and (b) women with earnings below (i) the tax threshold and (ii) the national insurance contribution thresholds, in (y) Great Britain and (z) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:622

  (thousands)

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  (i) Men

  900

  30

  Women

  2,600

  70

  (ii) Men

  900

  30

  Women

  2,300

  60

  Note: Figures for Great Britain are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

  Young People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds received housing benefit in(a) Dundee and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that about 1,000 16 and 17-year-olds received housing benefit in Scotland in 1990, 1991 and 1992. Figures for Scotland prior to 1990 and for Dundee are not available.Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample survey.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the amounts of income support to which(a) 16 and 17-year-olds with an automatic right to benefit, (b) 18 to 24-year-olds and (c) people aged 25 years or over were entitled in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Income Support Rate

  For 16 to 17-year-olds living at home

  For single 18 to 24 year-olds and 16 to 17-year olds living independently

  For people 25 years and over and 18 to 24-year-old lone parents

  £

  £

  £

  April 1989

  20·80

  27·40

  34·90

  April 1990

  21·90

  28·80

  36·70

  April 1991

  23·65

  31·15

  39·65

  October 1991

  23·90

  31·40

  39·65

  April 1992

  25·55

  33·60

  ·45

  April 1993

  26·45

  34·80

  44·00

  Notes: The higher rate of IS for 16 to 17-year-olds is available only if claimants are living independently out of necessity or if they are disabled. This rate became available to 16 to 17-year-olds on 10 July 1989.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit as a result of vibration white finger have been rejected in each of the last five years because the process by which the claimant contracted the condition is not covered by the prescribed list of occupation diseases.

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

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council currently studying hand-arm vibration syndrome.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that the council has not yet completed its study and does not expect to do so for some time.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider introducing non-means-tested benefits for lone parents who are not covered by insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  One parent benefits is a non-means-tested and non-contributory supplement to child benefit which is already available to all lone parents. It is currently received by nearly 1 million families.

  Contributory Benefits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider increasing contributory benefits for people aged over 80 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  We have no plans to increase contributory benefits for this group of pensioners over and above the proposed general increase in state retirement pension announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his statement to the House on 1 December.

  Pensions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider restoring the links between pensions and average earnings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  We have no such plans.

  Social Fund
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons are now employed by the independent review service of the social fund; and what is the annual cost to public funds of the services provided by that body.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the social fund commissioner that there are currently 162 staff employed by the independent review service. The estimated running cost expenditure for 1993–94 is £3,960,000. Available information on previous years' running costs is published in the social fund commissioner's annual reports.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases or appeals have been referred back to local offices by the independent review service in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and how many of these referrals have resulted in a change in the decision of local social fund officers.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the social fund commissioner that in 1993–94—April to November—2,370 cases were referred back to the Benefits Agency for redetermination. Information on the number of such referrals that resulted in a change in the original social fund officer's decision is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of lone parents with a child aged under 11 years and in receipt of family credit are receiving the maximum amount of family credit;
  624
  (2) what proportion of lone parents with a child aged under 11 years receiving less than the maximum amount for family credit are receiving between the maximum amount and £28 less than the maximum amount.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  All cases

  Number on maximum FC

  Percentage receiving maximum FC

  Family Credit lone parents with child aged under 11

  134,760

  42,380

  31·45

  All cases

  Number receiving between maximum FC and £28 less than maximum FC

  Percentage receiving between maximum FC and £28 less than maximum FC

  Family Credit lone parents with child aged under 11

  134,760

  55,260

  41·01

  Note: Information as at 30 April 1993. Based on 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Nude Models
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social security what is his policy on the suggestion to benefit recipients that they should seek work as nude models; whether this policy applies to women only; how many(a) men and (b) women have received such advice from benefits office staff; and what information on vacancies for such work is held centrally.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of benefit is a matter for Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman with such information as is available.

  Letter from Tony Laurence to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 13 December 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard to answer questions about relevant operational matters. However, as Mr. Bichard is away on annual leave at the moment, I am replying on his behalf to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, about the suggestion to benefit recipients that they should seek work as nude models.
  A person in receipt of an incapacity benefit may be considered capable of suitable work following a medical examination. Such decisions are made by Adjudication Officers (AO), who are independent adjudicating authorities.
  If the AO decides that a person is capable of work, then, as a result of a long standing Commissioner's decision, the AO is required to specify the type of work that person is considered capable of doing.
  Although a job description of "Artists model", which included that of nude modelling, was contained in a previous publication used by AOs as a source of job example, that source was superseded in February 1993 by the Standard Occupational Classification. This publication, which is in the Library, does not include a description of the variety of work possibly undertaken by an "Artists model".
  The specific information asked for is, therefore, not available in the format requested.
  I hope my reply has been helpful.

DEFENCE

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to raise the matter of the safeguarding of surplus military plutonium at the NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels on 9 and 10 December.

  Mr. Aitken
  A range of issues was discussed at the Defence Planning Committee and Nuclear Planning Group meetings on 8 and 9 December. A copy of the communiqué issued after the meetings has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Artillery Systems
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) of 1 December,Official Report, column 605, on 14 Calibre Artillery systems, if the SPLLS were delivered to the British Army of the Rhine via the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  No.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what categories of damage are included in aircraft accident rates per 10,000 flying hours listed in "UK Defence Statistics 1993", table 3.8; and if the recalculation of the numbers of accidents referred to in footnote 1 to table 3.8 applies to Royal Navy and Army aircraft as well as those of the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Hanley
  The categories of damage included in aircraft accident routes per 10,000 flying hours noted in UK Defence Statistics 1993, table 3.8, are categories 4 and 5. No recalculation was necessary for Royal Navy or Army aircraft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what form the data on aircraft accidents and accident rates forming the basis of table 3·8 of the publication "United Kingdom Defence Statistics 1993" were supplied by the service safety organisations to his Department's statistical services; and what are the differences in format since the 1992 edition of the document.

  Mr. Hanley
  Data on serious aircraft accidents are passed to the Defence Analytical Services Agency by signal immediately after the event. Written confirmation of the contents of tables 3·8 and 3·9 is sought from the service flight safety organisations before publication of "Defence Statistics". Flying hours, by aircraft type, are provided by the services.

  There are no differences in the formats of table 3·8 and 3·9 since the 1992 edition.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why aircraft accident rate information for the years 1975 and 1980, in table 3·8 of "United Kingdom Defence Statistics 1993", is only available for some aircraft types; what records exist within his Department on the number of flying hours and the number of major accidents for each aircraft type for the years 1975 and 626
  1980; and what plans he has to include additional information in the 1994 edition of "United Kingdom Defence Statistics".

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to include additional information in table 3·8 of the 1994 edition of the United Kingdom Defence Statistics.

  The accident rate information for 1980 in table 3·8 of United Kingdom Defence Statistics 1993 is complete. The numbers of accidents in 1975 in each service are published in the first part of table 3·8. The flying hours for individual aircraft types flown by the Royal Navy and Army are not readily available.

  Upavon Army Base
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the designated role and purpose of the new Army base at Upavon, Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The headquarters organisation of the Army's inspector general doctrine and training has collocated in Upavon from eight separate locations in the United Kingdom. The primary role and purpose of the organisation is to formulate a coherent military doctrine; to ensure the translation of that doctrine into training policy and the implementation of individual training and training support to meet it.

  Flying Hours
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of flying hours flown per aircrew per year in RAF front-line strike/attack/ reconnaissance units in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Strike/Attack

  Reconnaissance

  1987

  434

  228

  1988

  469

  245

  1989

  457

  241

  1990

  463

  251

  1991

  398

  218

  1992

  447

  235

  11993

  375

  199

  1 to end of Oct 93

  Nimrod
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Nimrod aircraft was first certified to carry nuclear weapons; and whether this certification applied to the United Kingdom as well as United States weapons.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Nimrod aircraft was certified for carriage of American nuclear depth charges from its entry into service in 1969. It has never been certified to carry British nuclear weapons.

  Combat-ready Aircrew
  Mr. Llywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if instructor aircrew in the Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado and Hawk reserve squadrons are required to maintain combat-ready status.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes.

  Housing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 173, (1) on what consideration he bases his policy of not revealing the future expenditure plans of MoD budget holders at the level of detail requested;

  (2) whether he has considered changing his policy regarding the release of detailed information on the future expenditure plans of MoD budget holders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The 10-year costing of the defence programme, known as the long-term costing, upon which details of future expenditure plans are based, is designed for internal planning purposes only. Approval to commit expenditure is subject to separate procedures and endorsement by Ministers as appropriate. To avoid giving a misleading impression as to the firmness of our plans, therefore, we would not normally provide such details. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to change this policy.

  Defence Costs Study
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official report, column 176, if he will list each of the aspects of support that he will be looking at as part of the defence costs study; and if he will provide detailed information on their current functions and costs.

  Mr. Aitken
  At this stage, I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 176, how long the defence costs study will take; and if he will publish a declassified copy of their work once it has been completed.

  Mr. Aitken
  No overall timetable has been set, since the time needed to look at different areas of defence support will vary considerably. Work is, however, being taken forward as quickly as possible. We will decide how best to make public the results of the study as soon as we have had the opportunity to consider them.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 176, what are (a) the current headquarters costs, (b) the current manpower costs and (c) current procurement practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Details of defence expenditure are given in the publication "UK Defence Statistics: 1993 Edition". Table 1.3 gives planned expenditure for 1993–94 in each of the management areas. The total figure for MOD headquarters and centrally managed expenditure is £1,886·3 million. Table 1.2 shows that anticipated expenditure on service and civilian personnel this year is £9,716 million. The fullest and most recent description of current procurement practice is in "Britain's Defence Procurement", a booklet published by my Department in July 1993. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 176, how many staff will be employed on a full-time basis on the defence costs study.
  628
  Mr. Aitken
  A secretariat with eight full-time members has been established to co-ordinate work on the study. The work itself will be carried out by a number of small study teams, each looking at different areas of support business. Some staff will work full-time on the study as members of these teams.

  Married Quarters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money he has spent over the last two years on upgrading the physical condition of married quarters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received and what consultations he has had in relation to the setting up of a local liaison committee for the atomic weapons establishment, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have received one representation from the director of environmental services, Cardiff city council, concerning the setting up of a local liaison committee for AWE Cardiff. I am pleased to announce that following an exploratory meeting with local authority representatives the inaugural meeting of the local liaison committee for AWE Cardiff is scheduled for 24 January 1994.

  Nuclear Warhead Convoy (Breakdown)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the breakdown on the M25 of the nuclear warhead convoy vehicle on 9 December.

  Mr. Hanley
  A military convoy stopped on the M25 on 9 December to allow the inspection of a suspected mechanical defect on one vehicle. As a precautionary safety measure, the civil police cordoned off the inner lane of the motorway.

  Following the inspection, the tractor unit of one of the vehicles was changed and the convoy continued its journey and arrived safely at its destination. It is a long-standing policy neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular place or time.

  Spent Polaris Warheads
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines he has agreed for the transportation by road, rail and shipping for spent Polaris nuclear warheads from Faslane to the atomic weapons establishment, Burghfield and for warheads of parts thereof to AWE Aldermaston and Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Nuclear warheads, and their components, can be transported by road, sea or air. Appropriate safety and security procedures are applied to all such movements.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many shipments have taken place from Faslane to atomic weapons establishments at Burghfield, Aldermaston and Cardiff of spent Polaris nuclear warheads for decommissioning, decontamination and disposal; what
  629
  proposals he has for future programmes of this kind; and if he will make a statement on his proposals for amendments to the relevant nuclear site licences.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our policy to discuss movements of nuclear warheads. The question of licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 does not arise: under the AWE Act 1991, AWE sites are not subject to such licensing.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Customs and Excise controls are exercised on the entry of aircraft or warships.

  Sir John Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Crew and any passengers on military aircraft and naval vessels declare goods as required and pay any charges due. Declarations are also provided of any cargo and stores. Customs and Excise perform selective anti-smuggling checks in conjunction with the relevant naval or military body.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

CAP: Rules Enforcement
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that member states operate the rules of the common agricultural policy in such a way as to ensure a "level playing field", and what steps they have taken and will take to ensure that the Commission enforces such rules.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government are satisfied that, in general, member states implement and enforce their EC obligations properly. In those cases where other member states do not play by the rules, the Government are always ready to take up the matter with the Commission, which is responsible for ensuring that Community rules are observed, and with the member states concerned.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, how does the first part of that Answer square with the fact that 10 years after the introduction of milk quotas Italy still has not put them into force? It is now blackmailing the Community saying that it will put them into operation only if it receives further quota. Can the Government take any future steps to make sure that Commission rulings are obeyed quickly?
Earl Howe: My Lords, Italy and Spain have been provisionally allocated additional quota provided that the quota system is implemented properly and that production is reduced. The additional quota will be confirmed for the 1994–95 quota year and beyond only if the Council of Ministers is satisfied that the obligation to reduce production and implement the system has been met. The reduction in production in Italy and Spain was a major factor in the decision not to implement a 1 per cent. across-the-board quota cut at this year's price fixing. I stress that, in return for the extra quota, Italy must reduce its milk production by 14 per cent. of its total.
With regard to the second part of my noble friend's question, the UK is committed to the proper and rigorous implementation of Community law. We lose no opportunity, when well substantiated allegations arise, to make the facts known to the Commission.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl said that the Government are always ready to take action when alleged infringements come to their attention. Can he give me the date of the last intervention by the Government on such a matter? Can he indicate what the
1262
intervention was for and whether the Government ever intend to raise the question of the outrageous tobacco payments made out of the European budget, many of which are fraudulently misapplied?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is difficult to know where to begin to answer the noble Lord. I cannot give him the last instance where we did so, although there have been a number of instances this year where we referred well substantiated allegations to the Commission and to the member states concerned. The noble Lord will recall an example that we debated the other day; that is, the standards in Spanish slaughterhouses. With regard to the tobacco regime, the noble Lord will be aware that tobacco is high on the UK's list of priorities when ensuring that the measures which were recently agreed are implemented and therefore that the cost is contained.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the concessions reported to have been made to French farmers in the current GATT negotiations are to be at the expense of the other member states and their farmers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government agree with the Commission's assessment that CAP reform is compatible with the obligations on agriculture which a GATT agreement is likely to contain. We therefore see no need for special measures to compensate EC farmers for the effect of that agreement. Even if they were to become necessary, the cost would have to be within the agriculture expenditure guideline agreed at the Edinburgh European Council. The Brussels European Council meeting on 10th and 11th December issued a declaration making it clear that the financial decisions of Edinburgh must be respected.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the situation in Scotland where this year the arable farmers are facing a 5.4 per cent. reduction in their compensatory arable payments? Even worse, next year they face a 5.4 per cent. increase in the land they set aside, making 20 per cent., and that is enough to break. an arable farmer's heart. Furthermore, the 5 per cent. will not be paid for at any time. The German Government faced the same result in part of Germany. They negotiated with the Commission, used their influence and reduced the penalty to 10 per cent. of what it should be on paper. The Government believe in a level playing field. Can the noble Earl say what representations they are making to the Commission or to the Council to correct that heavy burden?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that we must all sympathise with those farmers in Scotland who find themselves in a position of incurring penalties as a result of the overshoot mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. However, it has to be said that the Scottish overshoot of 5.4 per cent. was not the result of any exceptional event, as was certainly the case in Germany, but of a simple increase in the area of cereals sown. So it is difficult to see what grounds we have for seeking an exemption from penalties whose very existence arises directly from the policy, to which I believe your

1263
Lordships all subscribe, of keeping the CAP cost to a minimum and ensuring a level playing field among the member states.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, on my second question—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think it is the turn of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not this talk of a level playing field nonsense? It is quite clear that there are no recognisable sanctions which can be applied against anyone who is in breach of any of the agreements. Does that not mean that all this talk about being a one-unit Europe is based upon a fraud? Should we not all proceed on the basis that it is up to every nation to see that its own concerns are properly applied and accepted?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I would remind my noble friend that the Maastricht Treaty on European Union includes, at our instigation, a provision to impose financial sanctions on member states which persistently fail to meet their Community obligations. The European Court of Justice has also stressed that member states should regard adherence to Community law with the same seriousness as adherence to national law.
Lord Carter: My Lords, how can there possibly be equity in cereal production, for example, when nearly all the reduction in the 1993 cereal harvest resulting from set-aside has come from one member state—the United Kingdom?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the area of land set aside in each member state will vary depending on the total arable area and the number of growers claiming payments under the arable area payments scheme. Firm figures for 1992–93 are not yet available for other member states. However, as the noble Lord will realise, the percentage of land set aside in the United Kingdom and in France is not all that dissimilar. Area payments are tied to average historic production levels and the effect of that is that other member states will not be able to increase their production at the UK's expense.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that our cereal production is down by 11 per cent. while the average in the Community is 1 per cent.?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said, we do not yet have the final figures. It would not be surprising if there were a disparity. I cannot confirm the figures that the noble Lord has mentioned because, as he knows very well, the number of larger farms in the United Kingdom greatly exceeds on average the number in other member states.

London Underground: Power Failure
2.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent similar failures by London Underground to that which occurred on 25th November, and whether compensation will be paid to passengers who suffered hardship as a result of that failure.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London has asked London Transport for a full report on the power failure on the Central Line on 24th November. Until we have seen this it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. Customers affected by the problems on the Central Line can make claims under the terms of London Underground's Customer Charter; claims outside the terms of the charter are being considered by London Underground on their individual merits.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is not part of the problem that London Underground has recently been spending a larger proportion of its resources on extending the system and a rather smaller amount on maintaining the existing set-up in an efficient condition?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, London Underground is targeting existing services. Core investment over the next three years should be in the region of £1.75 billion. This includes the £750 million modernisation of the Central Line which is providing 85 brand new trains, new signalling and up-rated power supplies.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, should have asked this Question, which is very similar to the one that I asked last week. Does this not demonstrate that on all sides of the House we are extremely concerned about these developments? Can we be assured that the inquiry which the Government have asked London Underground to undertake will be completed as soon as possible, and that we shall be advised of urgent action taken to avoid a repetition of this unfortunate event?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that London Transport will deliver the full report on the power failure as soon as possible, and that we shall take action on it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, do I understand the report will be published?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, London Transport will be reporting to the Government and to the Minister for Transport. In the light of what the report says, we shall decide what action should be taken. It is not appropriate to pre-empt the report before we have received it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not absolutely necessary that the London Underground should both be extended and proper maintenance undertaken? Is it not

1265
a fact that there is in existence 80 year-old cabling; underground signals which are 40 years old; breakdowns; runaway trains; and that commuters are desperately inconvenienced? Does the Minister agree that compensation cannot begin to answer those problems? Does the Minister agree with his colleague, Mr. Steven Norris, who said that the system obviously needed more money than is being spent at present? In those circumstances, is it not absolutely wrong that the support from the Government for London Underground has been substantially cut?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the projected investment figure on the existing core services of £1.75 billion is more in real terms than for any three-year period during the 1970s and 1980s. The London Transport core business has been protected at a time of severe pressure on public spending.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree with his colleague, Mr. Steven Norris, who said that what is being spent at the present time—we have listened to what the Minister has said—is inadequate having regard to the current emergency situation affecting London Underground?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the money being spent in investment on London Transport core business is not inadequate. There is always a case for more money to be spent. The point is that the core business investment has been protected in the light of the very severe public spending round.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not the fact that, despite all the criticism which we have heard this afternoon about London Transport, the general public in London are very grateful for the service, which is usually run most efficiently? Does my noble friend agree that during the emergency, which was totally unforeseen, London Underground coped very well at the time? Will he confirm that new money is going into the extension of the Jubilee Line, whereas an earlier question led the House to believe that that was money at the expense of the ordinary services?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. The fact that the incident occurred was obviously very unfortunate. But the evacuation of 20,000 people from the Underground system was accomplished without serious incident. Public perceptions of the service provided are also improving, which is an important measure of its success.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to have to evacuate 20,000 people is a serious incident or does he regard it as trivial? Has he or his noble friend ever travelled on the London Underground? If so, then their satisfaction must be unique.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we regard the evacuation as extremely serious; but we also see that completing this exercise without serious incident was a great feat and very well undertaken.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us when the CrossRail link will be completed, which will take pressure off the Central London line?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that that point is beyond the scope of this Question.

Beer and Cigarettes: UK Duties
2.53 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty' s Government:
Whether the imposition of lower rates of duty by other European countries, particularly on beer and cigarettes, has a detrimental effect on the competitive position of British industries which produce these goods and whether in the long term the high rates of duty in the United Kingdom are in the interest of either the Treasury or the public.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the duty charged on beer and cigarettes imported commercially from other EC member states or elsewhere is the same as that charged on beer and cigarettes produced in this country. The level of UK duty alone, therefore, has no detrimental effect on the competitive position of the British brewing and cigarette industries in relation to commercial sales within this country. In setting duty rates the Chancellor takes into account a number of factors, including the competitive position of the industries.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply, but I cannot accept what he says. In France, apparently, the duty on beer is one-seventh in many cases of what applies here. Therefore, a large number of cheap beers are being brought over here and the same applies to cigarettes. Surely that cannot be in the interests of the industry or the Treasury?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the fact that the rate of duty was not increased in the November Budget should be of some help to UK brewers competing with personal imports of beer. However, the decision by private individuals to shop in another EC member state does not depend solely on the duty differential. The total price is usually the governing factor.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is my noble friend concerned when Customs fear that over 50 per cent. of beer imported through Kent goes straight to street markets, boot sales and small shops for resale, all avoiding UK tax?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, estimating the effects of cross-border shopping is complex and surveys differ widely in their forecasts. After making allowances for pre-existing levels of cross-border shopping, the element which represents new business, and the difficulties in obtaining properly representative samples, it is not clear that the effects are anything like as significant as the media and lobbyists make out. The position is being closely monitored in the interests of government revenue and UK trade.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the Minister must be aware (must he not?) that cheap foreign beer and cigarette imports are bound to be detrimental to our competitive position? Is it not also the case that Norwegian salmon is being dumped in western Europe, threatening jobs in the salmon fish farming industry? Given that imports of cheap coal lead to the closure of British coal mines and that imports of cheap tobacco from Europe will inevitably close British tobacco factories, does the Minister not agree that the answer to the first part of the original Question is "Yes" and that such factors are detrimental to our trade and economic position?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the total price of beer is usually the governing factor. In the case of tobacco products, the greater part of personal imports into the United Kingdom is of tobacco products made in the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is no loss to the UK tobacco industry.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a level playing field within the Community means that there should be harmonisation of Customs and Excise duty? When does my noble friend think that that will come about so that we do not have the position whereby it is cheaper to go over in a lorry and pick up at a much cheaper price beer that has been produced here and exported to France?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government do not consider that harmonisation is necessary. Member states must be free to set the most appropriate rates which they think necessary for their own particular circumstances.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that his statement that it does not hurt the British competitive position has met with some incredulity throughout the House? Has he consulted the cigarette and beer manufacturers to find out their view? Is it not a fact that as a result of our policy the British Treasury is losing revenue while the French are gaining and that French retailers are making profits that are lost to our own?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it is for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set the rates of duty he considers appropriate.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is right that the price differential is not due to our very high excise duties and taxes, then must it not be the case that he is also arguing that our producers are ripping off the consumer by having high margins? Is that what the Minister is saying? Is he denying what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clark: that a country such as ours operating on the basis of free trade cannot have indirect taxes very different from those of our competitors? Does the Minister agree that that is a question of market economics and not what the Chancellor believes? It is the way markets work.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I said, the Government do not consider that harmonisation is necessary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Caithness answered a Question on similar lines on 25th November, at col. 341 of Hansard, he said that it was estimated that there would be a full year revenue loss of £250 million from increased cross-border shopping. Can my noble friend confirm that that revenue loss includes the loss of direct taxation from the British brewing industry (in corporation tax, and income tax from their employees) and from the retail trade, particularly in the south of England?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can confirm that the revenue losses expected for 1993–94 are the projected £250 million. I cannot give my noble friend any further information on the loss of taxes from such companies.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister give some information in relation to cigarettes; first, about the extent of the import and export of cigarettes between ourselves and other countries, and secondly, what effect the tax measures actually have upon sales here and abroad?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, this is an extremely complex subject. I do not have the figures to hand, but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Infant Feeding Formulae: EC Directives
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they carried out before implementing EC Directive 91/321 on infant feeding formula.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Council Directive 91/321 on infant formula and follow-up formulae has not yet been implemented in the UK. Draft proposals for GB regulations implementing that directive and Council Directive 92/52 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae intended for export to third countries have been prepared and were issued for consultation in the normal way on Friday 3rd December 1993. The Government will consider the comments received before finalising the regulations next year.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that courteous and helpful Answer. But does he not agree that this is a petty, meddlesome, irrelevant and costly measure, which tries to prevent mothers seeing that wicked thing, children's formula, being advertised because it is better for babies if their mothers feed them? Can my noble friend say how long it will be before, for example, car advertising is not allowed because it is healthier to walk? Surely this is an outrage that we should be resisting.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I find myself in disagreement with my noble friend. The directive has been welcomed

1269
widely both by the industry and by groups representing professional and voluntary interests. The measures are important because they provide safeguards for young infants for whom in many cases these products provide the main or even the sole source of nourishment from birth.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in view of the first Question this afternoon, can the Minister assure the House that there will be a level playing field as far as breast-feeding is concerned? What action are other member states taking to implement the European directive?
Earl Howe: My Lords, after a question like that, it is transparently clear that the noble Lord was a breast-fed baby! We are going out to consultation on the basis of there being a directive. We shall take account of all comments received arising out of that consultation, the deadline for which is Friday 4th March 1994. We shall then introduce our national laws not later than 1st June. I stress that this is a consultation and that we shall take account of all comments received.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, will my noble friend expand a little on the answer in which he said that the measure had been welcomed by the industry? I seem to recall that when I was a health Minister and this first arose, much of it was a very vicious campaign against Nestle. I wonder whether this is a continuation of that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the draft regulations give statutory force to existing voluntary measures which were agreed with the industry generally in line with World Health Organisation guidelines to protect breast-feeding. In addition, they require guidelines to be issued on the presentation and content of information and on educational material about infant feeding with the aim primarily of avoiding any bias against breast-feeding.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, but why on earth does the European Community have to interfere in this regard? Is it not a matter for national decision? Does not this sort of directive interfere with every nook and cranny in our national life, which the Foreign Secretary said would not happen once the Maastricht Treaty was ratified?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord will of course be aware that aspects of competition law come into all this. In the single market in which we now operate, I think that it is right that all member states should play by the same rules in terms of the composition of products and their labelling and advertising. As I have stressed before, this is a sensitive area because the products are marketed and manufactured for the benefit of a very vulnerable group of individuals.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
1270
When my noble friend Lord Ferrers introduced the Welsh Language Bill to your Lordships he craved your Lordships' indulgence for his lack of mastery of the Welsh tongue. It is my earnest hope that a similar indulgence may be extended to me. Your Lordships may already have noted that I am not a Welshman but my noble friend Lord St. Davids will repair that deficiency and will doubtless be able to contribute a more local perspective than I can to the more detailed debates which we shall have in due course.
I am sure that we all look forward to listening to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Kenyon later in today's debate.
This is the third Bill relating specifically to Wales which your Lordships have been asked to consider in the present Parliament. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Act lays the foundations for a modern capital city for Wales. The Welsh Language Act promotes the ancient language of the Principality and requires provision to be made for its use by public bodies and the courts in Wales. The Bill before your Lordships today is intended to modernise the structure and operation of local government in Wales.
In considering why local government stands in need of modernisation, the first thing that we should recognise is that there is much that is good about local government in Wales in 1993. As stated at the beginning of chapter 2 of the Government's White Paper:
"Local Government is government for local people by local people".
Elected councillors give up their time to serve their fellow citizens and, overwhelmingly, they serve them well. The 45 local authorities in Wales at present are staffed by dedicated men and women who provide a high standard of service to their local communities. Local government as an institution has served the country well. It is a vital part of our constitution and way of life in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Nonetheless, there are powerful reasons for reforming the system. The reorganisation of local government in 1974 rationalised a structure that had grown up over many centuries. It made local government fit for the 20th century. But our task now is to equip local government to meet the challenges of a new century. For while there is much that is worth keeping in local government, there is also much that stands in need of reform.
Few people would deny that the changes of the 1970s cost Wales some of its cultural cohesion. Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire still retain quite distinct identities and have not sat, and do not sit, comfortably together in Dyfed. Local people do not identify with the new county but with the historic shires. The Bill will go a long way towards restoring that cultural cohesion and that sense of belonging.
It has become a truism to say that the present system of local government is not widely understood by local people, but although it is a truism, it is a truism that bears repeating. I am sure that it will not often be clear to the inhabitants of Cardiff whether a particular service comes to them by courtesy of Cardiff City Council or from South Glamorgan County Council. That may sound a trivial point, but it strikes at the very roots of

1271
good local government. If the man or woman in the street does not know where responsibility lies how can they hold authorities to account? And where there is no accountability there can be no proper sense of responsibility and no genuine response to local concern. In the long run, what sanction then is provided by the ballot box?
The problem is not simply one of there being two tiers of local government. It is compounded by the fact that the two tiers share responsibility for certain functions; for example, planning and economic development. Is it surprising that local people become confused?
Another consequence of those overlapping functions can be friction between authorities at different levels as when, for example, a district council is required in its planning function to implement the structure plan policies of the upper tier county authority.
Nor should we forget that all of those authorities have to support a central administration headed by a chief executive supported by finance, personnel and legal departments. Those are necessary attributes of a public authority, but the existence of them at both levels is a burden on the taxpayer, and one that can, and should, be avoided.
Having diagnosed the ailment, the Government have had to seek a cure. The Government have sought that cure partly through consultation. The product of that consultation is the Bill we have before us today. That has been shaped, in part, by the enormous volume of correspondence that has been generated since the review process began in 1991, copies of which have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. I have also placed maps of the proposed structure in the Library to assist your Lordships' debate. Those are also available from the Printed Paper Office.
Before I move on to consider the Bill itself I should say just a brief word about the Secretary of State's decision to defer implementation of the reform until 1st April 1996. That was a subject which exercised your Lordships during the debate on the gracious Speech and I think that it might be helpful if I explain once again the background to the decision.
Due to the late start to the present Session and the crowded programme facing both Houses, it became obvious that we could attain the Government's original objective of implementation in 1995 only by unduly curtailing debate in Parliament so as to permit elections next spring or by deferring the elections until the autumn and leaving little time for the new authorities to prepare for their task. Delaying implementation until 1996 will allow proper debate both in your Lordships' House and in another place. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is still considering the precise timing of elections to the new authorities but those are likely to be in April 1995, allowing a full year for planning and preparation.
With your Lordships' permission I shall turn now to the Bill itself and to the solutions that the Government are proposing to resolve the difficulties to which I alluded earlier.
1272
Your Lordships will see that we begin to tackle the problems of the two-tier structure at the very outset of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the present counties and districts to be swept away and replaced by a single tier. The establishment of unitary authorities is the first of the two core principles underlying the whole Bill. The Government believe that local people, wherever they may be, should be served by a single authority. A one-stop shop—where they know they can go for all their local services—with no confusion about where responsibility lies.
In passing, I draw your Lordships' attention to the titles proposed for the new authorities. Your Lordships will find in Schedule 1 that some are to be counties and some to be county boroughs. I trust that your Lordships will not be confused by those two styles. Where we have resurrected the names of the historic counties—Anglesey and Monmouthshire, for instance—we have given them the style of county council. We have also used "county council" for the Mid-Wales authority, because it covers a rural area, and for Cardiff and Swansea so that, with Her Majesty's permission, they may be known as "the City and County of Cardiff' and "the City and County of Swansea". Elsewhere we believe that the old title of "county borough" would be more appropriate given the essentially urban character of those unitary authorities. Your Lordships will also wish to note the provision in Schedule 1 and in Clause 2 for all those authorities to be named and titled in both English and Welsh, in keeping with the important principle established by the Welsh Language Act.
In constructing the new structure of unitary authorities the Government have had to keep in view two important but not always complementary considerations. The first is that, so far as possible, the new authorities should relate to recognisable communities that command the loyalties of local people. The second is that they should be sufficiently robust as units to be able to manage and, where appropriate, deliver services effectively and provide local people with value for money. The pursuit of those two objectives has resulted in a varied pattern of authorities across Wales; as your Lordships will see, varied both in terms of their territorial extent and of their population. The details of the proposals are to be found in Schedule 1.
Of course, in some areas in reconciling those objectives the Government have had to lean more towards one of the objectives than to the other. At this stage I simply ask your Lordships to remember that one cannot just put down a template on the map of Wales and draw some arbitrary lines. Nor can one respond to every demand of community identity. If we did that we might well return to the days before 1974 when there were 181 local authorities in Wales.
I referred a little while ago to the two core principles underlying the Bill. The first, as we saw, is the establishment of unitary authorities. The second is the concept of the enabling authority. I apologise if I descend into jargon at this point. What is meant by that concept is that the individual authority should be responsible for setting objectives and standards and for planning how services are to be delivered to local people. It will be responsible for securing the delivery of

1273
services, but, unlike the traditional local authority, it need not be responsible for delivering all those services itself. It may co-operate with another local authority. It may buy the service from the private sector or from another authority. It may choose to involve the voluntary sector. It may still choose to deliver the service directly. In that context I refer your Lordships to Clause 24 of the Bill which establishes a new framework in which authorities will operate when providing services to one other.
It is the Government's belief that by creating a structure of unitary authorities, close to local people and with clear responsibility for managing the provision of services, they are creating an accountable and responsive structure suited to the demands of the next century.
Part I provides for the establishment of a new unitary structure for local government in Wales, with Clause 1 and Schedules 1 and 2 setting out the new authorities. I also draw your Lordships' attention to Clauses 3 and 4 and to Schedule 3 which provide for the first elections to the new authorities. Also in this part of the Bill are provisions relating to community councils—the "third tier" of the existing so-called two-tier structure. These build upon the results of the consultation exercise to which I referred earlier. They establish new arrangements governing the establishment and dissolution of community councils and enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make provision, by order, for the new authorities to consult the community councils on matters relating to their functions.
Part II and Schedules 4 to 9 transfer the functions of the existing counties and districts to the new authorities. Clause 17 deals with the general transfer of functions. Otherwise the Bill refers to specific functions only where there are particular circumstances that need to be dealt with. For instance, your Lordships will note that Clause 19 and Schedule 6 will enable the Government to redesignate the national parks as joint or special boards not affecting their membership or functions but protecting their funding. I have already referred to Clause 24, which would enable the new councils to trade with one another. Clause 25, with its requirement for the new authorities to produce plans describing their arrangements for service delivery, is a transitional provision which applies to the first year only.
Part III covers the new authorities' arrangements for decentralised management, the Secretary of State's reserve powers and, in Clauses 31 and 32, enabling provisions that would permit the new authorities to experiment with and, if appropriate, to adopt alternative forms of political management. Clauses 26 and 27 provide for decentralisation schemes. This provision has been included in recognition of the fact that our attempts to meet objectives of community identity and effective service delivery have, particularly in the rural heartlands of Wales, had to lean towards the latter objective. The Secretary of State hopes to have published a draft of the guidance referred to in Clause 26(10) before the Bill reaches its next stage. This will make clear that area committees could, if that is what is wanted locally, have significant powers devolved to them, including most district council functions, such as housing management
1274
and environmental health, as well as some county council functions, such as locally delivered social services. They would not have financial autonomy. Most of their financial provision would come from the unitary authority in the same way as any other local authority committees. As for Clauses 28 to 30 on reserve powers in connection with joint working, I should emphasise that these are transitional arrangements designed as a safeguard against any breakdown of service delivery in the first years of the new authorities. Thereafter any imperfections in local arrangements will be judged at the ballot box.
Part IV and Schedule 10 simply adapt the existing local government finance legislation to the new unitary structure.
Part V and Schedules 11 and 12 establish the Residuary Body for Wales and the Staff Commission for Wales. The residuary body will oversee the transfer of assets and liabilities to the new authorities and, where appropriate, will dispose of any surplus assets. The staff commission will be charged with advising the Secretary of State on the steps needed to protect the interests of staff being transferred to the new authorities or being made redundant as a result of re-organisation. An advisory committee on staffing matters has already been established.
Part VI makes a number of transitional provisions arising from the change to a new structure. Most of the provisions, like much else in the Bill, are firmly rooted in the precedent of the Local Government Act 1972 and build on the experience of re-organisation in 1974. I draw your Lordships' attention, in particular, to Clause 45 which requires existing counties and districts to form transition committees to prepare the way for the new authorities. This is a vital and important task which the decision to defer implementation will greatly facilitate.
In Part VII your Lordships will wish to note Clauses 57 and 58, which will permit Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to revise lieutenancy and shrievalty areas where re-organisation makes that appear appropriate.
I apologise for detaining your Lordships for so long. This is a major piece of legislation affecting the lives of every man and woman in Wales. It puts local government on a firm footing and is a new structure that will be ready to meet the challenges of the next century. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rodger of Earlyferry.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, who is one of Wales's newly-appointed representatives to the European Committee of the Regions. I also welcome the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate of Scotland and thank him for the way in which he explained to the House the principal provisions of the Bill. He need not have apologised for spending 20 minutes introducing a Bill which is so complicated and important. We on this side of the House can never be sure who on the Government Benches will introduce a major Welsh Bill. The absence of a Welsh Office Minister in introducing

1275
a major Bill and partaking in the examination of its provisions in the revising Chamber highlights a major weakness in constitutional arrangements.
The Bill before us introduces radical changes in the structure of Welsh local government. We heard from the noble and learned Lord that it purports to strengthen local democracy, to strengthen the distinctive community identity and to delivery quality services. Of course, those aims are right. But we believe that in general the Bill is unlikely to achieve any of them. Indeed, it may well lead to reduced services in many parts of Wales.
The responses to the 1992 White Paper, which are to be found in two boxes in our Library, confirm that its proposals caused criticism and anger in communities up and down Wales. Furthermore, if it matters to the Government, the proposals caused deep anxiety to the professional bodies whose members serve the local authorities to the best of their abilities. Of the many professional organisations which wrote to the department, perhaps I may cite the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, which described the Bill as appalling from its point of view.
Despite the weight of the criticism from the communities and professional bodies, the Welsh Office has ploughed on with the Bill. With respect or without, that is arrogance. I live in Wales but I am not aware of any upsurge of demand for the reorganisation of local government. I was extremely pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate pay tribute to the members and staff of the Welsh local authorities, who over the past 13 to 14 years have been subjected to snide remarks from government Ministers in Wales.
We have lived with a system which was set up in 1972 by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, who is in his place, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, who is also in is place. I am not aware of a widespread criticism of that piece of legislation. There are no malpractices on the part of Welsh local authorities, as there have recently been in the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Development Board for Rural Wales.
Therefore, notwithstanding what the Minister said, I am bound to tell the House that the impression has been created in Wales that the true explanation of the Bill is that Welsh Office Ministers decided to produce a weaker local government structure, whose leaders would be less able to stand up to the Welsh Office; and at the same time to increase further the power and patronage of the Secretary of State, which are already formidable in Wales. To the extent that that is so, it is idle to pretend that the Bill is other than mischievous.
Perhaps I may use the insensitive phrase of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who said that, if enacted, the Bill would sweep away the eight county councils and 37 district councils. They will be replaced by 21 unitary authorities. The noble and learned Lord is a very skilled lawyer, but I did not hear from him an explanation of the basis of the choice of 21 such authorities rather than, for example, a dozen or two dozen. The reason for that is that it is highly unlikely that any objective criteria have been used. It seems to
1276
the people in Wales that the number of authorities and their boundaries have been determined by the political judgment of the Government and all that that implies.
Again, the noble and learned Lord omitted to inform the House that the Bill would also reduce the number of elected councillors by one-third—down to 1,250—whereas the number of people appointed by the Secretary of State to manage nominated bodies in Wales has reached 1,450. The Bill does not address that problem, which in our experience in Wales—and this was confirmed in the recently published research document of the Department of Regional Planning of the University of Wales College Cardiff—lies at the heart of the matter of the governance of Wales today.
If there is to be local government reorganisation, we accept that, for many of the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Lord, there is a strong case for setting up unitary authorities. We accept that. But the Labour Party has always made it plain that that is conditioned on setting up at the same time, or as a condition precedent, an elected Welsh assembly which has specific responsibilities for strategic services such as highways, fair trading standards, economic development and certain key aspects of social services and education.
However, in this Bill the Government have gone for 21 unitary authorities without such an assembly. That results in inevitable flaws in structure. It is flawed fundamentally because the weaker authorities will not be strong enough to discharge some of the main specialised functions of local government such as those that I have just mentioned.
The Welsh Office commissioned the accountants Touche Ross to advise on the financial implications of the reorganisations. Touche Ross made it abundantly clear in its report of 12th March that:
"There is a consensus that, in small authorities, direct provision of all aspects of key services such as education and highway management will not be feasible".
It goes on to draw attention to some of the difficulties. We are told that the weaker authorities are unlikely to have the capital resources to justify new provision for special needs education—a matter which greatly concerns your Lordships' House. We are told that the provision of Welsh medium education is also at risk.
Touche Ross reported to the civil servants that it had been suggested that:
"education could be linked to sports and leisure under a single directorate resulting in administrative savings".
That is quite outrageous.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is in her place listening to the debate. It emerges also from the report that there is huge uncertainty as to how the social services will be delivered. I should mention to your Lordships that, sadly, Wales has been left with a heavy dependency on social services and we need to be mightily careful that the lives of the needy and handicapped will not be blighted because of the imposition of a wrong structure of local government.
Therefore, the fundamental flaw in the new structure is that it leads inevitably to joint arrangements on a vast scale. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate dealt with that. It may be that Clause 30 is only a transitional clause, but it is important because, if your

1277
Lordships examine it, it will be seen that the Secretary of State has taken power to himself, subject to the affirmative resolution of Parliament, to set up a range of statutory boards to which he can hive off many functions specified in the Bill. As a layman, without much difficulty I can think of at least 20 situations in which the Secretary of State might exercise those powers. That number may be too high of course, but the fact is that it is possible for the Secretary of State to create a new generation of quangos by 1999 on such a scale subject only to affirmative order.
I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is in his place. I should mention to your Lordships that the hybridity of the orders is to be ignored under Clause 59(4). We believe that that is constitutionally objectionable.
If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate had had time to read the avalanche of responses received by the Welsh Office, he would have seen that there is heavy criticism of joint arrangements. In the words of one correspondent they are:
"A recipe for friction, conflict and consequential inefficiencies".
The case is worsened as the Bill also empowers the Secretary of State at his sole discretion to set up joint planning boards under Clause 19 and to set up combined fire services schemes under Clause 22. That means that local responsibility for those services will be at two remove. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could tell the House how many such boards and combined schemes there will be under the two clauses. How far down that road do the Welsh Office mandarins intend to go? But, of course, it will be for the House in Committee to ask itself whether to give the Secretary of State the power which Clauses 19, 22 and 30 would confer upon him.
Interestingly, paragraph 1.2 of the White Paper is critical of the,
"complex set of arrangements which emerged during the previous century".
I should mention to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—and, indeed, to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State who knows no more about Wales than the noble and learned Lord—that a major feature, if not the main feature, of the government of Wales in the 19th century was the heavy reliance upon special boards for specific services, such as the incomprehensible boards of guardian, school boards and highway boards which were not responsive to public opinion. Therefore, it is not surprising that we read paragraph 1.2 of the White Paper with a great deal of cynicism. By setting up an admixture of joint boards and combined schemes for specified services accountable to no one but the Secretary of State and senior civil servants of the Welsh Office, the Bill is repeating the mistakes that were made in the 19th century. The Bill is returning us to the situation which prevailed at that time.
It has been argued—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate spent some time on the matter—that the new councils should see themselves as enabling authorities, buying the services from the private sector. If the noble and learned Lord was familiar with the report of Touche Ross, he would know that there is an immediate question. The immediate practical question
1278
is: where will the services come from in rural Wales? As Touche Ross warned on page 22 of its report, the solution
"depends crucially on the availability of suitable providers of the services sought".
So there we have it. The skills and the expertise may not be there, but that is not the end of it. The danger is that we may therefore see semi-qualified outfits setting up to offer a contract of service if they believe that they can make money out of it.
I now move on, almost naturally, to consider another fundamental flaw in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord talked about the first clause sweeping away community authorities. It will destroy historic community identities that have been the source of tradition and civic pride, having developed since 1888 in some instances, and which in many cases have existed for several centuries. Yet paragraph 1.2 of the White Paper concludes with the significant statement:
"A structure of local government without such support"—
in other words, traditional loyalties
"cannot be as effective as it must be to meet the challenges of the next century".
I should like to ask a few questions to see whether those words have any meaning when used by Welsh Office officials, or whether they are beautiful terms about nothing. For example, why are the Government so determined to disband Montgomery, which has been a unit of government since 1542 and has an efficient district council? Again, why should the former country borough of Merthyr Tydfil—a recognisable community if ever there was one with its distinctive history, sense of common purpose and efficient district council; and which is at the heart of the sub-region—lose its independent existence? Why is there this inconsistency between word and deed?
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will marshal his arguments for Montgomeryshire with his usual competency. I hope that the Government will listen to him and think again. I also know that there are other noble Lords present who will press the claims of other communities such as Meirionnydd, which was created in 1284. Although I do not go back to 1284, I owe Meirionnydd a huge debt of gratitude. It has an efficient district council. Other speakers will argue the merits of boroughs such as Port Talbot, Neath and Cynon Valley. Therefore, it would be helpful and constructive if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could give an indication as to whether Welsh Office Ministers are prepared to consider further argument, or are their minds finally made up that this is the way that reorganisation is to go in 1994? I invite the noble and learned Lord to make a specific reference to that point in his reply.
The recognition by the Government of the widespread anger felt in the communities throughout Wales about their proposals has come a little late, and totally inadequately. The recognition may be there in Clause 26 with the so-called "Powys model", to which the noble and learned Lord gave some attention. However, that concept is far less attractive than it may appear at first sight. The clause is 'very loosely worded—a point that must be apparent to the noble and learned Lord—and it is not clear how the area

1279
committee will relate to the principal council, or to another committee, if two or more are set up. It is also unclear what the principal council and the area committee can do and what discretion will be left to either council. We are asking whether the clause is an attempt to preserve in Powys the two-tier structure which is so roundly condemned in the White Paper. Moreover, we are puzzled at reconciling the so-called "decentralisation principle" of Clause 26 with the joint-arrangement principle of Clauses 29 and 30. They seem to be extraordinarily inconsistent. All that is evidence that Clause 26 has not been deeply thought through.
We believe that the Bill contains the seeds of instability. It is a recipe for trouble and does not offer stability. But, of course, there is an alternative. What would make for better government would be the setting up of unitary authorities for certain functions while transferring strategic functions—such as, trading standards, economic development, highways and aspects of social services and education—to an elected Welsh assembly. That would achieve three aims: first, it would preserve and enhance existing standards of service; secondly, it would preserve existing loyalties; and thirdly, it would bring a new democratic impetus to Welsh life. Although that solution has the enormous corroborative support of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Council of Welsh Districts Councils and the local government union, Unison, it has been dismissed by the Government; indeed, nowhere in the White Paper is it discussed. That again, to our mind, suggests arrogance on the part of the Welsh Office.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris in his winding-up speech will deal with question of how much the new structure will cost. Your Lordships have, as always, been patient. Perhaps I may now conclude by repeating, as I have tried to show, that in the White Paper the Government have made overwhelming use of rhetoric in paving the way for the Bill. The misuse of words by civil servants in drawing up the White Paper is deeply worrying. The authors have paid lip service to old and well accepted concepts and principles which are deeply cherished in Wales, and they have done so in order to lead people to believe they were being offered a quality of local government that they were not. Therefore, one begins to feel that a confidence trick is being played on the Welsh public—and that will not be forgotten.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I join with the two previous speakers in expressing our sense of anticipation at the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon. I knew his father when I was deputy chairman of the Flintshire court sessions where he was a frequent attender—in a magisterial capacity, I might add. We all remember his services to education through the University College, Bangor, and we look forward with eagerness to hearing his speech.
I welcome the participation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in the debate for I feel that the Scottish experience is much more relevant than English
1280
experience in the context of our discussion, for reasons that I shall come to presently. Local government, by its very nature, is so different from national government and, to most people in Wales, is more important. Although I have no direct participatory experience of local government, my wife has a good deal. When we compare notes I sometimes feel that she is very much the worker at the coal face while I am looking at the same problems from the remoteness of the coal board area manager's office. Local government is much closer to the people and their concern about immediate problems such as the education of their children, the state of the roads leading to their farms and houses, the finding of a place to live, and the provision of social services for their grandmothers and similar matters.
People want immediate access to their local councillors and officials. They want to attend meetings at civic centres, to hear debate in the town or county hall, and to make sure that their view is heard. Local government is far more than merely the delivery or the provision of services; its role is far more than that of simply fulfilling statutory duties from on high. It is concerned with accountability, democracy, local responsibility, local pride and local priorities.
We have been inundated with literature, advice and special pleading on this Bill's subject matter. Some of that pleading has been merely the repetition of shibboleths concerning English local government. It ignores the fact that in Wales we have what England does not have—an additional tier of government, call it national or call it regional! We have a Secretary of State for Wales; we have a Minister of State for Wales; we have an Under-Secretary of State for Wales; and we have thousands of civil servants in Cardiff and in other parts of Wales, administered from Cardiff. Those civil servants are concerned with our education, our health, our highways and other matters. There is no comparable regional provision in any part of England, although some metropolitan areas have much larger populations than the whole of Wales.
The argument that some services are best provided over a large area or on a regional basis, whatever its merits—I shall not go into them now—has to be put in the Welsh context of an already existing regional tier of government. Indeed, when I first read of the lunatic scheme to have only eight unitary authorities of local government in Wales based on the eight existing counties, my reaction was to think, "Well, if the Welsh Office officials back that one, they will be paving the way to their own eventual redundancy." You cannot have local government on a regional basis and also have a regional tier of government. One would have had to go.
Scotland has had its own Secretary of State and Scottish Office for a century. If that has been the case for longer than a century, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will tell me. The unique position of Scotland and of Wales is justified by their respective nationhoods. In a British context this has led to a different approach and to an appreciation of different values. As the Minister of State for Scotland informed the House during the debate on the gracious Speech, there have been unitary authorities operating

1281
successfully in Scotland for years with no expressed wish from areas with much smaller populations than any proposed for Wales that they should be changed. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate knows that.
There is no comparable experience in England. Therefore, I appreciate the participation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in the debate. I hope that he will advise the Secretary of State for Wales to forget his experience of English conditions of local government and take heed of Scottish experience which is so much more relevant.
Furthermore, I believe that if there is to be economic and administrative justification for our regional tier of government—there has to be—then the very least it should be able to provide are units of local government much more in accord with the wishes of the vast majority of local inhabitants in Wales. It is important to have acceptability. We have talked about responsibility and accountability, but acceptability is all-important.
There is no need for a Secretary of State for Wales who has courage, discretion and sensitivity to follow rules of thumb on population laid down for him in England either by the Treasury or the Department of the Environment. The Bill has been necessitated by the disaster of the local government reform Act of 1972. I repeat the word "disaster". This reform comes 20 years after that Bill became law. The pressures for change in Wales and in England at the time were considerable. The Bi11 was bulldozed through both Houses of Parliament with little or scant attention paid to criticism. No distinction at all was drawn between England and Wales. The Bill was a prime example of the refusal of the responsible Minister to listen to, or to heed, the warnings given to him. There was plenty of advice, including that of Mr. Nicholas Edwards, the then Member of Parliament for Pembroke and now the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I am sorry the noble Lord is not present today. He opposed the idea that Pembrokeshire should be replaced by and absorbed into the county of Dyfed. I remind noble Lords that the county of Dyfed, however large, was smaller than Powys. The noble Lord used much the same arguments that I did in objecting to Montgomeryshire being made part of Powys. When addressing the argument that all the new counties should have roughly the same population, he said that a minimum population is a concept,
"that even in terms of efficiency has no meaning at all in isolation from the other factors, social, geographic and economic".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/71; col. 533.]
Powys, covering an area of 507,000 hectares—a quarter of the total area of Wales—I warned was completely unacceptable, not only as a unitary authority but also as a county authority. The huge size of the county undermined the principles of democratic accountability and efficiency of service.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Wales has taken the trouble to obtain figures for the past few years of the mileage claims of councillors and officials of the Powys County Council for travel undertaken legitimately in the discharge of their duties. Has he considered how much greater they will be for a unitary authority? I remind him of the time spent in motor cars in an authority whose length, some of your Lordships may
1282
not realise, is the equivalent of the distance from the Severn Bridge to the Hammersmith flyover in London. Alternatively, it is the equivalent of the distance which I travel every week coming to London from Birmingham. All that time spent in cars is dead time, however efficient the official or conscientious the councillor. It is paid for in salaries or allowances, but it is not productive time.
The basis of the unacceptability of Powys as a local authority is that it provided regional services. It was not a local authority at all. Breconshire and Radnorshire did not like it either. Likewise, Gwynedd Was unacceptable to the people of Ynys Mon and Merionethshire. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is in his place. Reference was made earlier to education. My county of Montgomery was the first county in Wales to fulfil the duties imposed on education authorities to conform with the Education Act 1944. Its only rivals were Anglesey and Ynys Mon. Two of the smallest county authorities in Wales were the first to fulfil their obligations. They had no trouble in providing services of the quality required of their councillors and directors of education.
Dyfed was unacceptable, particularly to the people of Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire. It was ridiculous that our capital city, Cardiff, should be part of South Glamorgan county authority. There was no sense in that at all. One could continue with examples of the disastrous mistakes of the 1972 Act.
Suffice it to say that most people welcomed the principles of the 1991 consultation paper when it was issued. Local government reform was in the air. The principles adumbrated were acceptable. There was a new optimism as the local authorities concerned reacted to the Government's proposals. In Chapter 4 of the consultation paper the Secretary of State stated:
"The Secretary of State is persuaded that the best structure for a single tier of Unitary Authorities in Wales will be found between [the] extremes",
of eight unitary authorities based on the existing counties and 37 based on the district councils. He continued:
"Maps 3, 4 and 5 show three possible patterns of local government in Wales".
They were structures consisting of 13, 20 and 24 unitary authorities respectively. He went on to say that he considered that the structure of 20 unitary authorities had significant attractions arid appeared to offer the best basis for further discussion. My preference was for the 24 authorities, or more.
According to the consultation paper prepared by the Welsh Office, the unitary authorities—whether 20 or 24—included Llanelli, Brecon, Radnor, Montgomery and Merioneth. Montgomery was included in both options. The map showing 20 unitary authorities showed Montgomery as one unitary authority and Brecon and Radnor combined as another. That was preferable to the present proposals.
It is of great interest that, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, pointed out, the Welsh Office asked its appointed consultants, Touche Ross, and a finance sub-group, formed to report to the 'Welsh Office's appointed structures sub-group, to work out costings on a model of 23 unitary authorities, which is yet another variation. One was Montgomery; Merioneth was

1283
another. I do not know which was omitted because there was a dotted line between Brecon and Radnor, but it may well have been one of them. It could have been the Cynon Valley. Both reports concluded that all of those authorities would have been able to provide affordable services.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, quoted earlier parts of the report, but it is the conclusion which matters. The Touche Ross report states:
"However, following detailed consultation through the Welsh Local Authority Associations, an alternative map involving 23 Unitary Authorities has been under consideration and, at the Welsh Office's request, a final financial assessment has concentrated on this option … We conclude that, based on the associations' assumptions and costings, the 23 authority option should allow services to be delivered at broadly no extra cost to the present structure".
It was therefore no surprise when the Secretary of State for Wales, the right honourable David Hunt, announced in another place in early March 1992 that he intended to base his unitary authorities on the old county allegiances. He specifically named Montgomeryshire as one of them. It was the second one that he mentioned after Pembrokeshire. His exact words were that,
"in the rural areas I want to see local government based on the traditional counties".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/92; col. 171].
All that was said after proper consultation processes, national assessments and so on. Furthermore, in Montgomeryshire itself, at the village of Llanfechain, in 1992, addressing a Conservative meeting, Mr. Hunt promised that there would be a Montgomeryshire unitary authority. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will convey to the Secretary of State our concern in Montgomeryshire that such a promise should be taken very seriously. No one has been more vigorous in the defence of Montgomeryshire than the local Conservative Association, which has actively supported the group of which I am chairman.
I have given my own county as an example. I am sure that that experience has been repeated elsewhere, although perhaps not in exactly the same way. What on earth happened between the spring of 1992 and the spring of 1993? We had a general election. The Welsh Office was subjected to tremendous pressure from, among others, Powys County Council, which has virtually no real friends apart from its own councillors and officials. It delivers services reasonably, but it is not local government and never will be. It is small wonder that an NOP poll taken in Montgomeryshire in July disclosed that 71 per cent. of the people wanted Montgomeryshire as their unitary authority and only 16 per cent. wanted Powys. We are all aware of the opinion polls taken by the commission in England, but they did not return figures like that.
The same can be said for Merionethshire, Llanelli, the Cynon Valley and, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, Merthyr. I trust that the Secretary of State will keep an open mind and listen. There was precious little listening during the 1971 debate. We do not want a repeat of some of the disasters which followed.
I can support the aims and principles set out in the Government's White Paper of March 1993. I agree with
1284
the reasons for reorganisation and that local government does not sufficiently reflect people's identification with their own communities and localities. I accept that the Government are committed to the creation of good local government which is close to the communities it serves and that local government is government for local people by local people. However, I say that in some areas the Government are failing to achieve what they set out to achieve. That is why there must be serious reconsideration.
I come now to those parts of the Bill which have been referred to as the Powys model. They result from a recognition by the Secretary of State of the depth of local identification and outrage in Montgomeryshire, Brecon, Radnorshire and elsewhere and seek to deal with the matter by allowing local area committees. I consider that model totally unacceptable. It is contained in Clauses 26 and 27. I hope to deal in detail with the matter in Committee. Suffice it to say that if it were to be effective in providing truly local government for those areas it would be reintroducing on a less efficient basis a two-tier system of government which the Bill aims to abolish.
Frankly, the status quo is preferable, however unacceptable Powys has been as a county council area. In saying that, I disparage in no way the efforts of its officials and councillors. Geography, history and habit were all against it. On the other hand, I believe that the decentralisation schemes depend much on the views of any particular Secretary of State. One asks immediately: who would service those committees? What would be the cost of area committees as well as the county council committee? The Secretary of State's own disclosures about the growth of bureaucracy in the National Health Service trusts in Wales should be ever present in his mind when he makes a cool assessment of the possibilities of development under Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill. It would be much better if he reconsidered the whole thing, going back to the principles that run through the White Paper and the consultation documents. They provide a basis for acceptable local government in Wales that will not need further change and division.
I have the transcript of an interview which the present Secretary of State, Mr. Redwood, gave on the Vincent Kane programme in December this year. Mr. Kane asked the Secretary of State, "Why didn't you go back to where we were 20 years ago?" In the course of his reply, the Secretary of State said:
"What I think went wrong in 1973 was that at that time they chose county areas that were very large"—
the largest was Powys
"and in many cases they didn't draw the loyalty in people in the way in which the historic counties have done, and so we see that there have been problems in getting the right sense of identity and participation in some of the big new counties of Wales and in some of the big new artificial counties in England. So our reform that I'm proposing now does restore the old counties, where that is possible, where they are a community and where they're a sensible size".
He went on to say that he could not reintroduce Radnorshire. I disagree. Scotland's experience is that a historic unit of that kind can be run efficiently. Be that as it may, if that concept is not acceptable to him, Brecon and Radnorshire, with a combined population of

1285
68,000, is larger than Cardiganshire, which will have a unitary authority. They constitute a much larger area. Why should that area not have a unitary authority? Why should not Montgomeryshire be a unitary authority? It has a huge area but no normal close affiliations with Brecon and Radnor. It is the one county in mid Wales where the population is steadily growing and estimated to be 60,000 by 1998.
Having been promised unitary status after proper consultations, one is bound to point out that the Secretary of State has a great deal to answer for in the Bill. Wales, as that fine novelist Emyr Humphreys, pointed out, is, "a little kingdom". As Secretary of State, Mr. Redwood comes to the little kingdom afresh. He inherited a situation not of his own making. But he will be judged in the future, in Wales and elsewhere, by the way in which he deals with it and how he reacts. If the Bill goes through Parliament in its present form, its provisions are unlikely to last even the paltry 20 years of its predecessor.
4.14 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has my sympathy. In this season of peace on earth and good will towards men, I feel sorry that he has to suffer for other people's sins. The Bill is not his product. He had to study it after it was produced. He knew little more about it than I did, I suppose, when he started on his brief. However, by now he will have realised that in Wales local government is taken very seriously indeed.
My good and noble friends (if I may so call them) Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos had the same responsibility that I once carried of being Secretary of State for Wales. We could have warned the Secretary of State that he was playing with fire when he decided to tear up the promises already made by his predecessor to the Welsh people.
We have listened to two powerful speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, who are very close to the people in the Principality. The decisions of the Bill will have far-reaching effects for generations now unborn. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and to the House. I fear that once the Bill is enacted, with the tearing up of local government, as we seem to have been doing, with the breaking up of people's careers and the changing of people's loyalties, those provisions will last because there will be resistance against pulling up the roots again later. That is why we need to give especial care to the proposals before us.
Last week I visited my home valley, the Rhondda Valley. Perhaps I may say the kind words at the beginning. Dear Rhondda, my Lords. Over the world people consider it as Wales—at least the Rhondda people believe that they consider it as Wales. I spoke to the mayor of Rhondda in a hospital for the elderly. The mayor told me how grateful he and the community are that the name of our beloved valley has at least been preserved. Mrs. Cerys Pugh, a little householder in the Rhondda, might not sound important in this House, but she counts in her valley. She is the voice of the people. She began a petition when it was clear that Rhondda was
1286
in danger. The petition was signed by almost everyone in the Valley. Therefore I say to the Secretary of State for Wales that I am glad that he has kept the name of the Rhondda.
I feel sorry for those in the Cynon Valley, a name which was rather new; it came in under the last local government reform. But Aberdare is something special. I am glad that the noble Lord will follow me in the debate. However, like Rhondda, Aberdare has a fierce civic pride.
I have heard many good things about the Secretary of State for Wales—about his keen intellect and driving ambition. For people in another place those factors are not an offence. If he does well, we do well. But I fear that with a cold, clear intellect such as his, he needs also a warm heart, as that enables a leader to feel sensitive to the emotions of those whose destiny he is deciding.
I think that the Secretary of State is in danger of underestimating the fierce loyalty of people to their own communities in Wales. It is not without significance that we have a national anthem of our own which sings of the land of our fathers being dear to us. The House and the Government especially need to bear in mind that if it will upset, as I believe it is upsetting, the deep-seated loyalties of communities in Wales, that is something for which they will not easily be forgiven.
I do not wish to use nasty language, but I am dealing with some nasty proposals. I just cross another mountain to look at Merthyr Tydfil, which gave shelter to Keir Hardie, as no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know. When Scotland would not give Keir Hardie shelter, Merthyr Tydfil did. He became the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, so there were links. His name is honoured and revered on the Labour Benches and I honour and revere his name. He was a Christian gentleman who served his generation and was the founder of the Labour Party. Merthyr has a particular place in the affections of the Welsh people and in the history of the Welsh people, and I think it is almost insulting to suggest that Merthyr is not capable of being a unitary authority. The people are proud of their representatives; those who served in the Welsh Office know that some of the ablest people in Wales are in our local government and in Merthyr. It is quite capable of being an authority on its own, or linked with Rhymni, which is one of the proposals.
The same applies over the next mountain, when we come to Blaenau Gwent. Blaenau Gwent is entirely capable, quite as capable as Monmouthshire, of being a unitary authority. When the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke about political motives, I thought, "It can't be, can't be". But I look at how Monmouthshire is being treated and then how Blaenau Gwent is being treated and Merthyr Tydfil, and I find a grave disparity. The last two have all the qualifications that Monmouthshire has, except that they are Labour authorities. That is disturbing. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will be prepared to look again at his proposal there.
I leave that part of my speech by quoting from a document I have received which states that Merthyr Tydfil is still the fifth largest town in Wales. I hope that that will be borne in mind when, as I trust will happen,

1287
we are taken seriously in the Committee stage and amendments will be accepted by the Government, if they really seek to express the will of the people of Wales in local government.
It was my privilege, along with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, to represent part of the City of Cardiff for nearly 40 years in another place. I live in the City of Cardiff. It is a beautiful city, a worthy capital city for Wales.
I have often thought how ridiculous it was that the South Glamorgan County Council consisted 80 per cent. of the citizens of Cardiff and 20 per cent. of Barry, St. Mellons and a few places around. We had to pay for two lots of bureaucrats. However, at least that is being put right. We will now have one. I am sorry for those who are going to lose their jobs, but I believe that the City of Cardiff, which is one of the most attractive in Europe, and is expanding, is worthy of the status which the Government propose to give it in the Bill. I say of Cardiff, again quoting from a document, that it is larger than 19 of the 36 metropolitan districts and 28 of the 32 London boroughs which have unitary status, so we are fully entitled to that status.
I wish to refer now to Port Talbot. I have the honour to be an honorary freeman of that town, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. We were both given that high honour because we were born there; our parents should have had it, but it fell to us. I know how hard the noble and learned Lord has fought for Port Talbot to be a unitary authority. You have got to know these places. That is the trouble. There will be people up here making decisions who do not even know what those places look like. Port Talbot has been giving outstanding service to the people who live there and they want to be a unitary authority.
However, the Secretary of State is doing worse than that: he is linking Neath and Port Talbot. I was going to say that they are like salt and sugar, but I do not wish to offend one side or the other. Those two have a fierce rivalry, and perhaps the Government Front Bench do not realise that the great event of the year in Wales is on Boxing Day, with the match between Aberavon and Port Talbot. With these proposals which are supposed to be interpreting the minds of the people, I am afraid that the Government could not be making a bigger mistake.
Before I resume my seat, perhaps I may refer to two other parts of Wales. I had intended to say a few words in support of Montgomeryshire, but a masterly brief in which every possible point has been made was delivered to us by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I wish to say only that when many years ago I represented Wales on the executive of the National Union of Teachers, I knew that the county of Montgomeryshire had a leading place for its high standards in education. Like Ynys MÔn, which had our first comprehensive school in Wales, Montgomeryshire was an authority which put great emphasis upon its educational services. I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in what he said.
I find it difficult to understand how the Secretary of State for Wales can go back on the promise of Mr. David Hunt at the general election meeting in 1992 in Montgomeryshire, which could well have affected the
1288
election, that there would be a unitary authority. That information has come to me from Montgomeryshire. If it is not correct, I shall owe the present Secretary of State an apology, but that is the information that I have received.
Reference was made to Merionethshire. It is hilly; it is large; it is typically Welsh. Welsh is the first language, and in many parts it is the only language that is used. Merionethshire is part of the huge area of Gwynedd in North Wales. It is so unfair to working people. If they want to reach their councillors it is a problem. I shall not go further, but I hope that the Government will look again at that matter.
In conclusion, the Government decided to introduce this major measure in your Lordships' House, which puts an enormous responsibility upon us. I hope that supporters of Her Majesty's Government in this House will realise that the question of local government ought not to be a party issue. Local government is older than national government. There was a Lord Mayor of London 200 years before there was a Speaker of the House of Commons. Local government touches the life of people at almost every point. It is because I am anxious about the matters that I have raised that I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he will convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales gratitude for what is good but a warning of trouble for what is bad in this Bill.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Viscount. He comes, as he told us, from the Rhondda Valley, and my family background is in the neighbouring Cynon Valley. I believe that the interests of both our valleys are the same; but there are fundamental differences in the way that they should be treated and I hope that the noble Viscount will find that he agrees with what I am about to put forward.
He spoke about the tearing up of local government in Wales. It is perfectly true that an enormous number of various proposals have been put forward over the past 30 years. There were draft proposals in 1961, which were revised in 1963. There followed a White Paper in 1967, with further modifications in 1968. Another White Paper was produced by the Labour Party in 1970; and that was followed by the Conservative consultative document of 1971 which culminated in the Local Government Act of 1972. That Act applied to England and Wales. Perhaps it is indicative of the added care that is taken in dealing with Welsh affairs that on this occasion we have a Bill of our own.
The 1972 Act brings back many memories to me. I was the Government Minister in charge of that Bill in this House. When I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that the Bill had been "bulldozed" through Parliament, I wondered whether I had been part of that bulldozing process. I think that I was. Looking back on the debates that we had, there was one very important amendment, which I believe the noble Lord mentioned, to exclude Pembrokeshire from Dyfed. I remember that it received the very warm support of the noble Baroness, Lady White. I said at the time that I was very reluctant to oppose such an amendment, but I had to do so and I

1289
am afraid that the amendment fell by 55 votes to 46. Now we have come to realise the weaknesses of the two-tier system, and the present Bill is based on a system of unitary authorities, which I fully support.
It is worth remembering that in the case of England the 1972 Act was preceded by a Royal Commission chaired by Lord Redcliffe-Maud. That was a very convincing report, which in the case of England only—that was the only area that it considered—advocated 58 unitary authorities out of a total of 61. The case was very convincing. However, at the time, for political reasons the then Conservative Government did not feel able to preside over the destruction of the county councils, and the two-tier system prevailed, both in England and in Wales.
However, times have changed. The lesson has been learnt that effective local government must be truly local and founded on well-established and easily identified communities. I believe that that is exactly what was meant by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and I totally agree. The present two-tier system has led to friction between authorities, duplication of administration and a lack of understanding and identification from the general public. I should like to pick out particularly what I consider to be the key words in the Welsh Office White Paper A Charter for the Future, published this year:
"Its aims are to establish authorities which, so far as possible, are based on that strong sense of community identity that is such an important feature of Welsh life; which are clearly accountable to local people … The proposals … in this White Paper will achieve those aims; they will establish new and innovative local authorities, firmly-rooted in their communities and enjoying strong local support".
I fully support those sentiments, and I support the Bill in principle, but I want to urge the Government to make one important change to their proposals which I believe would lead them nearer to fulfilling the policy which I have just quoted. That change is to their proposal for a new unitary authority to be known as Rhondda Cynon Taff, amalgamating the present boroughs of Rhondda, Cynon Valley and most of Taff-Ely.
It is of very great importance, as has already been said, to realise that for topographical reasons the mining valleys of South Wales form quite separate communities. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, if he is not familiar with the mining valleys, will talk to some of those in the Welsh Office, or even the Scottish Office, who are familiar with them. They are quite separate entities.
Rhondda and Cynon Valley are separated by a mountain range, precipitous in places, and there is practically no communication between them. Roads, railways, buses and rivers all run north and south along the valley down to Pontypridd, where the two valleys meet, and on to Cardiff. People on shopping expeditions or leisure pursuits outside their own district travel those routes—that is, they travel north and south, not east and west. Therefore, although those two boroughs share a similar history, there is very little feeling of community between them. To amalgamate them, as is proposed in this Bill, will, in my view, lead to friction rather than harmony. It would be to ignore the basic policy of the Bill, to which I have already referred.
1290
A combined authority would not be based on a strong sense of community identity and would not, therefore, enjoy strong local support. The Rhondda, being the larger in population terms, would presumably have more councillors than Cynon Valley, which would feel itself to be very much the junior partner, although its problems as a former mining area are similar and just as urgent.
However, the pairing of Rhondda and most of Taff-Ely is logical on geographical grounds. There are natural linkages between them, both in economic and in travel terms. Indeed, the affinity of those two districts increases the likelihood of friction with Cynon Valley if they are to be amalgamated into one new unitary authority. That is not simply my opinion; it is based on thorough research carried out by the present council of Cynon Valley to ascertain the views of local people in the borough. Its case to become a separate unity authority reflects the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants. A whole host of letters support its case. Furthermore, the borough council commissioned a report from the School for Advanced Urban Studies at the University of Bristol. In accepting the commission the school emphasised that the aim of the study could not simply be to provide ammunition to the council for it to fight a predetermined position. The school set out to provide an independent assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the council's case. I shall quote just two of its nine main conclusions. The first stated:
"Analysis of the functional working of the valleys reinforces the view that the main linkages are north/south rather than east/west, and that solutions which seek to combine separate valleys have little basis in economic geography, local community and culture, or the reality of local politics".
The second stated:
"Unitary options based upon the amalgamation of two or three Valley Authorities fail on the grounds that they lack local responsiveness and do not generate any scale of specialisation advantages in service planning and provision. Such Authorities would be characterised by divided rather than locally united civic leadership".
Only last year—1992—the Secretary of State for Wales agreed with the Cynon Valley argument that it should be a separate unitary authority. Perhaps I may remind the House of the sequence of events over the three years—1991, 1992 and 1993. The present proposals stem from the Welsh Office's consultation paper of June 1991 entitled The Structure of Local Government in Wales. There followed an intensive consultation period with the Welsh Local Authority Associations and others. As a result of that intensive consultation, the Secretary of State announced his proposals in another place on 3rd March 1992.
On that occasion he proposed that there should be separate unitary authorities for Rhondda and Cynon Valley, and that decision was, as may be imagined, enthusiastically welcomed by Cynon Valley borough council. But imagine the disappointment when, in the next Welsh Office paper of March 1993—A Charter for the Future—the Secretary of State went back on his decision and suggested an amalgamated authority covering the Rhondda, Cynon Valley and most of Taff-Ely. Why? We have never been given any reason for that change of mind on the part of the Secretary of

1291
State. I should be interested if my noble and learned friend, when winding up, can explain the reason for that complete reversal of policy after one year.
At first sight it looks as though the Welsh Office had been trying to reduce the number of unitary authorities in Wales and, seeing two convenient neighbouring valleys with similar past histories, decided to wrap them up in one authority. It looks good on paper. But as I have sought to explain, it does not take account of the realities of local life in the valleys. Nor can it be argued that there is any optimum population figure desirable for the new authorities. As proposed in the Bill, they vary from 52,000 to 285,000. In that range the proposed authority—Rhondda, Cynon and Taff —would be 238,000, right up the top. That compares with Cardiff and Swansea although it is different in nature and particularly in financial resources. Without Cynon Valley it would reduce to approximately 173,000 and come about the middle of the range of populations. Cynon Valley on its own, with something like 65,000 inhabitants, would still be comparable with other authorities proposed in the Bill such as Anglesey, Cardiganshire and Monmouthshire. If the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, had his way, there would be one or two other authorities as well.
In any case, there is no relationship between size and efficiency. There are efficient small authorities and inefficient small authorities; there are efficient large authorities and inefficient large authorities. But one advantage that the smaller authority has is being more likely to relate to local needs and to enjoy the confidence of local people.
The borough of Cynon Valley has shown itself to be well able to tackle the problems that face a local authority in the former mining valleys of South Wales. They entered into a joint venture with the Welsh Development Agency to stimulate economic regeneration and to attract new investment, with great success. Only a few days ago it was announced that the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, had decided to build its new £4 million scenery store in Aberaman. It negotiated grants of considerable size through the Welsh Office urban programme and from the EEC. It has removed virtually all the scars left by the coal mining industry and made considerable progress with the implementation of other environmental and infrastructure improvements to regenerate the valley. That successful strategy is, I suggest, in danger of being adversely affected by the proposed merger.
My case is based on one of the fundamental principles contained in the consultation paper of June 1991, which states:
"Local Authority boundaries should as far as possible reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties".
Those loyalties do not exist between Rhondda and Cynon Valley, nor between Taff-Ely and Cynon Valley. To combine those boroughs into one authority will lead to disagreement and dissension in the newly-formed unitary authority. It will perpetuate the lack of close community ties which characterises the present system and which the Bill seeks to reform. I beg the Secretary
1292
of State to look again at this specific provision in the Bill and revert to the decision made by his predecessor and announced in another place on 3rd March 1992.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his opening speech in which he sought to explain the Bill to us. However, he must understand that the Bill, which is of obvious importance to the future development of local government in Wales, was received with dismay and disappointment by a wide section of public opinion throughout the Principality. I am not unduly surprised, simply because the record of successive Conservative governments in the field of local government has not been a good one.
The thrust of government policy for 15 years has been to increase the power of Ministers and officials at the expense of elected local authorities and to create a large number of powerful non-elected bodies—the so-called quangos—whose tentacles reach into every home in the land. It is in many ways a sinister development, and I should like to give some examples.
Since assuming office in 1979 the party opposite has introduced more than 144 local government Acts. There have been more than 4,000 pages of local government legislation and at least 12 major changes in local government financing. A substantial part of local government revenue has passed from the councils into the hands of central government officials. That applies not only in Wales but in England and Scotland as well.
I say this to the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues on the Front Bench opposite. The Government have succeeded in undermining the confidence of men and women of all political parties, who have served their communities faithfully as members of local authorities. The Government's policies have a particular significance in Wales, not least because membership of the quangos bears no relationship to the political map of Wales. The Government's slogan is, "If we can't get them elected, we will appoint them—and we will pay them handsomely as well". That is nothing less than a national disgrace. This Bill points in that same direction and it is no wonder therefore that the opposition to it is widespread. Let me tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the critics include the CBI, the Association of European Regions, which said that the Bill is,
"a serious threat to the democratic process at the local and regional level".
the Welsh TUC, and, in particular, NALGO who said that the Bill is,
"bad for the people of Wales".
A number of professional bodies have also expressed deep concern. We, in this House, and those in another place have received well argued representations from a range of organisations—more than I can recall about any Bill in recent years.
The fact is that the Government—the Welsh Office in this case—made a major mistake at the very outset when they decided not to appoint a commission as was done in England. The Secretary of State and his advisers

1293
would decide what should be done in Wales. They thought they knew best what Montgomery, Pembroke, Merioneth, Glamorgan and the other regions wanted without bothering to have proper consultations. I was surprised when the noble and learned Lord referred to consultation. He thought that it was satisfactory. Obviously he has been misinformed. There was no comprehensive consultation.
I have been impressed and moved by the representations made by experienced councillors from various parts of Wales whom I have met in recent days. Other noble Lords will, I know, support me. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has powerfully argued the case for Montgomery. The present Powys has not been a success and my noble friend gave adequate reasons for that. There was no understanding of the views of the people or of the problems which exist over so large a territory as Powys. It is also unacceptable, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, that while one Secretary of State in 1992 gave a pledge that Montgomery should remain a unitary authority his successor reversed the pledge and the policy. That is not acceptable to this House or to Wales.
The representatives of neighbouring Brecon and Radnor support that view. Had there been proper consultation, discord and confusion would not have arisen, as my noble friend Lord Tonypandy pointed out in his moving speech. The same problem has arisen in Merthyr Tydfil, in the Rhymney Valley and in Blaenau Gwent. Here again, the case for revision is overwhelming, as it is in the case of Merioneth, Neath, the Cynon Valley and other parts of Wales. I strongly advise the noble and learned Lord to take account of the arguments advanced in the debate. Failure to do so will result in a running sore in Wales for many years to come.
Wales is also concerned with the nature of appointments to the Secretaryship of State for Wales. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Scotland would not have tolerated three non-Scottish Secretaries of State in succession. We in Wales have had three non-Welsh Secretaries of State. I respect their abilities but they were appointed to the office for the wrong reasons—for political reasons. They are quasi-colonial appointments, and in Wales we deeply resent that.
As my friend Lord Prys-Davies said in his powerful speech, we on this side take the view that the starting point for the reform of government in Wales must be the establishment of a Welsh assembly. I have held that view for very many years, as my colleagues in the House know. At the last general election more than 70 per cent. of Welsh voters supported a democratically elected Welsh tier of government. Both the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts support that aim, but the Government refuse even to discuss the proposal. Wales has not even had the dubious benefit of a "taking stock" exercise with which the Prime Minister has tried to placate the supporters of devolution in Scotland. The noble and learned Lord will know that well.
If anyone refers to the 1979 referendum, let me say that things and opinions have changed since then. The
1294
Welsh Office has grown in terms of budget and responsibility. As one noble Lord said, it now has a staff of 2,400 and a budget of £6.2 billion. I referred to quangos. The number in Wales which come under, the patronage of the Secretary of State has doubled in 14 years. In 1991 there were 80 Welsh quangos with a budget of £1.8 billion and a staff of 57,000. I ask noble Lords to note that it is estimated that this year the. quango budget will make up a third of Welsh spending, broadly comparable to the Welsh local authority budget. This is not the Wales I knew or the Wales I want to see. It is the argument for a democratic assembly. An elected assembly is urgently needed to subject the functions and actions of the Welsh Office to proper public scrutiny and to bring the multitude of quangos under democratic control.
The recent activities of two large quangos in Wales have highlighted a lack of accountability and of openness at the highest level of Welsh public life. That is intolerable and Wales deserves better. Let us face the facts. Britain is the only member of the European Union which does not have any intermediate tier of elected regional government. If the Government are going to abolish the two-tier system with this Bill, then we must have an assembly which would enable the unitary authorities to operate effectively. If the Bill goes through as it is, I foresee huge problems developing in Wales.
I think it is generally accepted that not all unitary authorities would have the resources to provide the whole range of education support and advisory services such as special needs teachers, music teachers and so on. What do the Government say to that? "Oh", they say, "they will have to buy these services from the private sector or obtain them from a neighbouring authority." I have believed over a long period that these services should be provided from regional centres under the guidance and scrutiny of an elected Welsh assembly. Our size and population as a country makes that the only sensible and practical solution to what is a real problem.
The question we have to ask is whether the proposals in the Bill provide the necessary framework to take local government in Wales into the 21st century. Having studied the Bill as well as I could, with all its complexity, the clear answer is that they do not. I repeat that over nearly 15 years the Government have launched a concerted and sustained attack on the powers and financing of local government. They have deliberately restricted, by a series of Acts, the ability of councils to build sorely-needed houses, to take part in local economic development and to plan educational provision. The great fear is that this Bill further restricts the role of local government. The White Paper included the significant words:
"The task of local authorities lies in identifying the requirements, setting priorities, determining standards of service and finding the best way of ensuring these standards are met".
I am bound to say that that is a narrow vision of local democracy.
The product of the philosophy which permeates this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, will be the emergence of many authorities which are too weak to sustain services such as education, the social services

1295
and highways. It seems inevitable that some areas will suffer from a poor provision of vital services and also from a lack of accountability to the public. The question that must be asked and that must be answered adequately by Ministers is: will the new authorities set up by this Bill be strong enough to carry out their functions without outside assistance?
I must tell the noble and learned Lord who is to reply, that I read Part III of the Bill with foreboding. Clauses 28 to 30 give the Secretary of State for Wales the power to determine the pattern of local authority arrangements and effective structures without any reference whatever to Parliament. The provisions in the Bill are a very real threat to democracy in Wales. They represent a huge growth in central government executive power through the use of statutory instruments and circulars and the power to appoint members to the boards of quangos. The Secretary of State will be able to rule Wales like a governor-general supported by extensive and unchecked powers of patronage. What a prospect for Wales! The influence of central government over locally-elected councils will be further increased. That is offensive and insulting to the people of Wales, given that the party in government has very little support at local level.
I ask the House to consider the ruthless thrust of the Bill side by side with the fact that at the last local government elections in May of this year, just 31 of the 506 county councillors elected were Conservatives compared with 270 Labour councillors. That is the reality of the political situation in Wales, is it not? I can think of some presidents in South America and elsewhere who would regard this as a very attractive strategy.
For many years I argued and fought with my colleagues for a Welsh Secretary of State and for a Welsh Office. I wanted devolution to a more democratic system because that is what the people of Wales have wanted for centuries. We have made more progress since the last war than at any time, I believe, since the Act of Union. This reactionary Bill is a step backwards. Let us change it while we have the opportunity.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, when I first entered your Lordships' House a few months ago and sat on the Cross Benches waiting to take the Oath, I was reminded of my first day at school when I was left alone in a totally new world where everyone knew everything except for me, and I knew nothing. Today I am reminded of the colours test, when I have to show that at least I have learnt a little. But I hope that your Lordships will bear with me when you discover how much I have still to learn.
I understand that I have to declare an interest in the subject of this Bill as I am an elected councillor of Wrexham Maelor Borough Council in North Wales. If I were in the council chamber today I should now be obliged by law to sit down, say nothing and even leave the chamber if my colleagues did not ask me to stay. But the enlightened procedures of your Lordships' House allow me to continue speaking on this important matter which is going to provide for a much simplified structure of local government in the Principality.
1296
Many noble Lords will have had first-hand experience of the two-tier structure of local government established under the Local Government Act 1972. Those of us who are still serving councillors have encountered difficulties with the structure, and we believe that it does little to enhance popular understanding of local democracy. In fact, it often appears to be a way of lowering public accountability. Furthermore, the separation of housing from social services, to name but one example, has prevented the better co-ordination of a range of interrelated local authority services and resulted in greater costs to the community.
Despite what has been said this afternoon, I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to claim that at the grass roots the political parties in Wales largely support the establishment of unitary authorities, although I recognise that for some this is within the context of an elected Welsh assembly or parliament. That of course I do not support. To me, that is just introducing yet another layer of democracy, which we were trying to remove.
So while the principle of creating unitary authorities seems to have received widespread support, its application will no doubt occasion often heated debate. In opening the fourth day's debate on the loyal Address on 24th November, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said,
"A structure of local government that cannot command the loyalties of local people cannot be as effective as it must be if it is to meet the challenges of the coming century".—[Official Report, 24/11/93; col. 265.]
That hits on the dilemma which is going to have to be resolved in any new pattern of unitary authorities; namely, to what extent do we look to secure economies of scale by creating large unitary authorities, while at the same time continuing to make local government more meaningful and accountable by bringing it closer to the people whom it is there to serve.
Ten of the proposed 21 new unitary authorities cover large areas, most of which embrace many localities and communities. Indeed, one unitary authority, Mid Wales, will become one of the largest in the country, covering nearly 2,000 square miles. I recognise that the Government are seeking to address this problem by proposing de-centralisation schemes or area committees. But it is unfortunate that we have not yet seen the draft guidance from the Secretary of State in respect of the preparation and content of these de-centralisation schemes.
I have some anxiety that the creation of such statutory area committees may re-create some of the inefficiency, confusion and inflexibility of the current two-tier system that this Bill proposes to do away with. It seems to me that if the Bill were to include two more Mid Wales unitary authorities, Clauses 26 and 27 could in effect be deleted.
I strongly support the Government's objective of keeping complex joint arrangements to an absolute minimum. The best way of avoiding too many of these joint arrangements, without jeopardising the standard of provision of public service by the unitary authority, would be to allow, and indeed encourage, the new authorities to trade freely in their specialist expertise

1297
and resources. As a Conservative councillor, I fully endorse the concept and growth of the enabling council and welcome the provision in Clause 24 for unitary authorities to enter into agreements with each other for the provision of services. I hope that the Secretary of State will seek to encourage such innovation in the interests of avoiding joint arrangements wherever possible.
Turning briefly to the proposed timetable for the reforms, which has already been the subject of considerable discussion in your Lordships' House, although I understand that the Government are now suggesting that the elections to the new shadow authorities should take place on 6th April 1995, I urge the Minister to consider bringing that date forward if at all possible, because there will be a tremendous workload in preparing the new councillors for their new responsibilities in April 1996 and we need all the time that we can get if we are to be fully prepared. In particular, I foresee considerable difficulties for schools in preparing their LMS budgets in time for the start of the new unitary authorities if those authorities have not had the maximum amount of time to prepare their own budgets.
The proposals in the Bill are to be warmly welcomed. I look forward to participating in our deliberations on this important measure when we resume in Committee next year.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, to me falls the very pleasant duty of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, on behalf of the House on his most interesting maiden speech. He comes from a notable family in North Wales. Many of us had the privilege of knowing his father, who was involved in North Wales in education, museums, health, libraries, agriculture, ancient monuments and of course with Welsh ponies and cobs. I hope that the noble Lord will have as broad a range of interests. I am delighted that he is a local councillor in Wrexham and can therefore speak in this debate with more authority than most of us and that he is to be one of the three representatives on the European Committee of the Regions. This debate will perhaps give him some useful briefing for that role. I hope that he will speak often in this House, and am delighted that he will be taking part in the later stages of this Bill.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is to speak later in the debate. I believe that he has up his sleeve some proposals which will affect the national parks in Wales, and I hope that he will disclose them when he speaks. I believe that they may set up independent authorities to run all the national parks in England and Wales. I would warmly welcome that because, together with the clauses on the national parks in this Bill, it would constitute what I would call a belt-and-braces strategy to assure the future of the Welsh national parks. I do not believe that there is likely to be any conflict between the two and I hope that that will go through smoothly.
I should also mention that like, I am sure, other noble Lords, I have received some briefing from the Society of County Trading Standards Officers, which is extremely
1298
concerned about the provisions in the Bill. It believes that the fragmentation of its members' work among 21 authorities will leave the departments too small to function effectively, and in particular will result in a loss of essential expertise. Its client groups, which include many important businesses, believe that such fragmentation would substantially increase the burdens on business, reduce the service's effectiveness and substantially increase costs. I know that in its White Paper the Welsh Office said that it was important that the professional competence and specialist expertise of the trading standards departments should be safeguarded. I am glad that the Welsh Office said that, but I hope that it will consider carefully the anxieties of the trading standards officers, and that between now and later stages of the Bill it will consider whether it can go some way to meeting them. I should be glad to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that that might be possible.
I do not intend to talk about the broad aspects of the Bill as it will affect Wales as a whole, but should like to say something about Mid Wales, which is where I live. I listened with great care to the powerful case for three separate authorities in Mid Wales which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in the debate on the Address on 24th November and again today. He was critical of Powys County Council. I cannot speak about Montgomeryshire because I live in the south of Radnorshire, but I have not detected any feeling of outrage in my part of Wales about Powys County Council. In my part of Wales, people think highly of the services that they receive from both Powys County Council and Radnorshire District Council. That gives us a difficult problem, because we know that one of them has to go. I think that most people take the view that it is sensible and would be cheaper, more effective and better if we were to have single-tier authorities.
I have dealt mainly with the officers rather than the councillors in Powys in matters relating to roads, lighting, drains and the problem that has been created by the impact on the area of the travellers who come to stay with us, and I have found them to be extremely helpful. People in my part of Wales have pointed out to me that in the old days when we were simply Radnorshire, children in my part of Radnorshire could not go to school in Builth, although it was the nearest town of any size, because that was in Breconshire, which was separate. However, they can now do so and can choose between going to Builth or Llandrindod, arid they welcome that. Altogether I do not think that the position in the southern part of Powys is as black as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, suggested.
When I first saw the proposals and that the counties of Pembrokeshire, Caernarvonshire and Monmouthshire were to be restored, my natural and first reaction was to hope that Radnorshire would also be restored. When I first came to Wales over 30 years ago, the county was Radnorshire and I always think of myself as living in Radnorshire. My first and immediate reaction was that I should like there to be a single authority for Radnorshire—as there used to be. However, I accept that there is a serious argument that we have too small a population to sustain a single council. We are a very sparsely populated county.

1299
Indeed, one of our prides used to be that, despite our fairly large geographical area, there was not a single traffic light in Radnorshire. I am not sure whether that is still the case, but it shows how small and essentially rural the county is.
There is also the argument that very small councils have problems recruiting staff. Obviously, it is difficult to attract high calibre staff to a very small council. Some may come because they like the countryside and living there, but the able and ambitious will, in the natural course of events, want to apply to larger authorities. Therefore, it may be difficult to retain high quality staff.
There is also the key question of planning. When we used to have two-tier authorities, I was very much of the view that the planning functions should remain essentially with the county councils because they had the professional staff who could deal with such matters efficiently. Such functions now lie with the district councils. Areas such as Radnorshire are increasingly subject to tremendous pressure from developers—both British and foreign. Some of the developments may be good and some less good, but it is essential that they are looked at carefully. I wonder whether a small authority such as Radnorshire can stand up to those pressures.
There was a case the other day near Rhayader where there was an application for a wind farm at Bryn Titli. The advice from the planning officer was that the application should be rejected, mainly on environmental grounds. The council also had advice from the Countryside Council for Wales that it should reject the application. Initially it did, but then after intense pressure, organised by the developers, it changed its mind and agreed. That is the type of thing that can happen easily. It can happen more easily with a small authority than with a larger, more powerful one.
In Clause 19, the Government have proposed that there should be joint planning boards. I am not sure how that would apply to Mid Wales. Perhaps the Minister will explain that point. I am concerned that a planning authority in our part of the world should have enough power to deal effectively with planning applications. As I understand it, the proposal is that if Powys is retained, or retained as Mid Wales, it would apply to the Secretary of State under the decentralisation arrangements provided in the Bill to set up shire counties—as they will be called—for the three constituent parts; that is, the old counties of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire, and Breconshire. More detailed local planning matters, such as an extension to one's house, erecting a new greenhouse, or something of that sort, would be devolved to the shire counties, but major strategic questions—those which have a far greater impact on the area than any others—would be retained by the main council. That seems to me to be essentially right.
Although my heart is with Radnorshire, I feel, on the whole, that what the Government propose for Mid Wales is right, and I support it.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, on his maiden speech. I have known his family, his father in particular, for many years, and I, too, wish him well not just in this House but in his local government activities.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Cledwyn, referred to a possible elected assembly in Wales. Whatever our views about that issue, it is not in the Bill. I remind them that, as recently as 1979 the Welsh people, on a referendum, refused by over three-and-a-half votes to one to have an assembly. That is not long ago. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, may say that conditions have altered. Indeed, things change, but the fact remains that we must think carefully before we introduce another tier of government into Wales.
The pattern of local government in Wales has been a matter for argument over a number of years. Because of the spread, and in some places the scarcity, of its population, reform has always been approached with diffidence by successive governments. I remember well the Labour Government, when the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, was Secretary of State and the noble Baroness, Lady White, was Minister of State. They toyed with the idea for a long time. They brought forward White Papers. We tried to bully them as much as we could in the Welsh Grand Committee to come forward with propositions and legislation, but the noble Viscount was far too skilful to be taken in by that, and it was left to us in the Government of 1970 to 1974 to tackle the question of local government.
I remember it well. I was the unfortunate Minister of State who had to take the Bill through committee. The noble Viscount enjoyed himself greatly at my expense. I look back at it with some enjoyment. I shall not pretend that we got everything right in 1972—we did not—and it is possible that this time the Government do not have it all right, but we live in an imperfect world. The four major areas of dispute in the 1970s were Dyfed, Gwynedd, Powys and Glamorgan. In Dyfed, Pembrokeshire was quick to point out that because of an influx of tourists its summer population was twice the size of its winter one. I am glad that the Bill corrects our mistake and lets Pembrokeshire return to its pre-1972 autonomy.
In Gwynedd, Anglesey pointed out that it was an island—indeed it is—so Ynys MÔn regains its position as a unitary authority. From the amount of paper that has come through the post, it is clear that Powys is still an area of varying views. On the smaller issues, I am glad to see that Ystradgynlais is to remain in Powys. I call it Powys because I believe that it should continue to be called Powys and not Mid Wales. The Government should think again on that point. It is right that Ystradgynlais remain in Powys. I well remember talking to its councillors in the 1970s about what they wanted. They wanted that; they still want it; and the Government are right to give it to them. The same applies to the decision taken over Gilwern and Llanelly Hill. Again, I readily accept that we were wrong in 1972.

1301
The major issue for Powys is whether Montgomery should be in it or out on its own. There has been a major campaign, led by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and his friends, and others in Montgomery, for Montgomery to go it alone. Montgomery people are naturally proud people, but so are the Brecon people and the Radnorians, of which I am one, as is the noble Lord, Lord Moran. We are not as well off as the other two parts of Powys. Radnor is a small county, with a population of only 23,500. I remember the old doggerel about Radnor:
"Radnorshire, poor Radnorshire, never a park and never a deer and never a man worth £500 a year except Richard Fowler of Abbeycymhir".
We must remember that it is at Abbeycymhir that Prince Llewellyn is buried, but that is by the way.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Moran, when he says the present county council has worked well over the past 20 years. The services are good, and the headquarters at Llandrindod Wells (which cost several million pounds) is about equidistant from south Brecon and north Montgomery, although I admit, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, that both are a long way from the headquarters.
When the then Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Hunt, made his first announcement, I warned him that anyone who attempts local government reorganisation is on a hiding to nothing. One cannot please everyone. Indeed, the Bill does not please everyone. But on reading the Bill now I believe that the present Secretary of State has got it about right, with 21 unitary authorities with their area committees. There have been a great many consultations throughout the Principality during recent months and years.
It is never possible to satisfy everyone, and no doubt we shall have some interesting and controversial debates on the Bill. I congratulate the Secretary of State on producing what I believe to be a workable Bill. I entreat this and future governments to leave the new set-up for at least 50 years. Changing local government patterns is a pretty expensive exercise.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, whose speech was lucid and admirable in every respect. He respected the tradition that one does not make controversial statements in a maiden speech, except in one respect. I believe that he inadvertently said that our object was to reduce democracy to a minimum. I suspect that he meant bureaucracy and your Lordships should take his remark in that sense.
I wish to address only a narrow area of the Bill. I declare an interest as a vice president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administrators. Its interests have been referred to on three occasions tonight but, as it were, en passant. I wish to make them the focus of my questions to the Minister.
Your Lordships may be aware of the scope and extent of the work of trading standards officers. They enforce 70 Acts of Parliament and more than 1,000 subordinate instruments. They also enforce 2,000 British standards
1302
and about 200 patent approvals, which are detailed engineering specifications for weighing arid measuring equipment.
The control of responsibilities of that size requires a range of disciplines and expertise which cannot be gathered together in a body consisting of only a few people. Therefore, the question of size, which was addressed by my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt and referred to throughout the debate, is of crucial interest to them. Not only do trading standards officers operate under all those statutory and subordinate instruments, they have to give advice on a wide range of subjects, which is of crucial importance to those who receive it. For instance, a finance house may be about to embark on a campaign to promote hire-purchase under which many millions of pounds will change hands. If it consults the trading standards officers on that issue and their answer is wrong the consequences will be considerable for both the consumers and the providers.
Trading standards officers stand between consumers and providers and must be impartial. It is interesting that both the CBI and the National Consumer Council have expressed anxiety about what they term the fragmentation of the trading standards service. It is not surprising, therefore, that the 1980 report of the Institute of Government Studies suggested that from its point of view the minimum size of an administrative unit should be—I hesitate because I cannot read my figures and I do not have the originals: I do not know whether the figure is 750,000 or 150,000 and the difference is enormous. However, Schedule 1 to the Bill provides that the smallest unit will be 52,000, which lets me out of the difficulty of specifying. The fact is that an individual authority will be unable to provide the service and the question arises of how it is to be presented.
Will the service be provided under schemes of voluntary co-operation, which my noble and learned friend mentioned may arise under Clause 26 or, failing that, Clause 29? If the arrangements are to be voluntary, I hope that the Government will look at the history of the many voluntary joint agreements which were entered into after the abolition of the metropolitan county authorities. I invite them to consider how many proved to be successful and, apart from West Yorkshire, how many actually survived.
If the service is to be voluntary, it will be necessary in Committee to ask how the chain of enforcement will work. Like police authorities, these authorities are required to enforce the law. For that purpose their officers have powers of entry, of examination and even of seizure. If the body by which they are governed is not a statutory body, to whom will they be responsible for the discharge of those functions? If it is a statutory body, will my noble friend point to that provision in the Bill?
I ask those questions now rather than in Committee in order to save time. It may well be that there are simple answers which can be elicited by asking simple questions rather than by tabling a series of amendments. I have one further question to ask my noble and learned friend and I apologise for not having given him notice. There is a similar Bill in respect of Scotland and I wish to know where it stands in the machinery. Is it to

1303
proceed in the opposite direction from this Bill; that is, from the House of Commons to the House of Lords? If so, how can we ensure that our efforts to improve the one sit properly with the other? I see my noble and learned friend nodding in answer to my first question, so I shall not ask a reciprocal question because I know that the answer will be no. This is as long a debate as we want and I have no reason to continue it further. I look forward to hearing the answers to my questions.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, it may not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the only in-depth reference to the capital city of Wales, Cardiff, came from the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. That does not surprise me in the least because capital cities throughout the world are rarely well thought of by the rest of the population. I do not believe that the affairs of London greatly concern the people north of Watford. I know that London is not too well regarded in Wales. Indeed, I have heard Americans make scathing comments about their capital city of Washington. However, as one who was born and bred in Cardiff and has a deep love of the city, as does the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, I shall make more in-depth comments about its future as I see it.
We are embarking on yet another re-organisation of local government in Wales. Clearly, the pattern of local government imposed on us by the Local Government Act 1972 has proved to have failed. I fear that the present Bill does not provide an acceptable local government system and that in the not-too-distant future we must try yet again to get it right.
There is general agreement in Wales that we need a unitary system of local government. However, I am afraid that this Bill does not give us such a system. It provides for extensive joint arrangements with dominant lead authorities, unclear staff loyalties and blurred member responsibilities. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is asking for powers to enforce voluntary joint arrangements. So much for unitary authorities. The Bill makes no mention of an elected regional authority for Wales—but I never expected that it would. Every political party in Wales supports such a concept except the Conservative Party. If Wales had had a local government commission, as England has, we should have seen a dramatically different set of proposals. I am absolutely certain of that.
However, we are faced with this Bill and we must do our best to improve it where we can. Quite frankly, the proposals for Mid Wales are a mess and I have nothing at all to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said in his powerful speech except to say that I agree with every word of that speech.
Whatever possessed the Government to consider merging Merthyr with Blaenau Gwent? They have nothing in common whatever. I have many friends in Merthyr and I have not found one single person who supports that proposal. I know that the Member of Parliament for Merthyr, Mr. Ted Rowlands, has had a
1304
similar experience. He knows his area better than anyone and he cannot find anyone who supports that proposal.
Just before the last reorganisation 22 years ago, I was elected a member of the Cardiff City Council, which at that time was a model unitary authority. It was responsible for the whole range of local government services—housing, education, social services, and public transport among its many other responsibilities. The 1972 Act made Cardiff a mere district council. That was a disgrace. Most of its important services were hived off to South Glamorgan County Council, which was a new authority. It was said at the time, and the feeling still exists, that South Glamorgan was created in order that the Conservative Party could control at least one important council in South Wales. If that was the intention, that plan went badly wrong.
I was elected to the new South Glamorgan County Council in its shadow year, 1973, and I became its first leader. I was a member of that authority until May of this year and I was its leader for 10 years. There have been six elections during the life of South Glamorgan and the Conservative Party have taken control just once. At other times, the Labour Party has won control and has increased its majority at every county council election. Against all expectations, South Glamorgan has become one of the most successful authorities in the United Kingdom, as I am sure successive Secretaries of State would testify. In terms of economic development, it has had great success. It has secured major inward investment including the Ford engine plant, the British Airways Airframe Maintenance Centre, Bosch, and prestigious firms in financial and related services which have brought thousands of new jobs.
The most imaginative move of the county council was to open up for development a large area of derelict docklands in partnership with the private sector. Following that decision, the Secretary of State, now the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, set up the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. He very wisely did not follow the English formula and the development corporation took no powers from the local authorities. All its planning proposals must be approved by the district councils. The county council has retained its control as a highway authority and elected members of the three authorities—the Vale of Glamorgan, South Glamorgan County Council and Cardiff City Council—nominate members to the board of the development corporation.
The Government can have no complaints about the way in which we have worked together in partnership with the local authorities, and as the deputy chairman of the development corporation I can testify to the good work done by local authority members of the development corporation.
The corporation does not take a collective view on this Bill, but I am aware that individual board members of all political opinions have written or expressed the opinion to Secretaries of State that the boundaries of Cardiff should extend into the Vale of Glamorgan to create a greater Cardiff authority.

1305
The mission statement of the Secretary of State in setting up the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation said:
"The objective of the Cardiff Bay Development Council is to put Cardiff on the map as a superlative maritime city which will stand comparison with any such city in the world, thereby enhancing the image and economic well-being of Cardiff and Wales as a whole".
That objective cannot be achieved if our capital city is to remain within its present boundaries.
Your Lordships will have gathered that I am proud of the achievements of the South Glamorgan County Council and its role as a strategic authority. Despite my aversion to quangos, I am not at all ashamed of the work that I am doing as deputy chairman of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. It is because of my experiences both in local government and as a member of the development corporation that I beg the Government to think again about the future of our capital city.
I do not propose anything which has not been suggested before. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised only a few days ago to be handed a photocopy of the Western Mail of, I believe, June 1919, just after the First World War. The city fathers of the time proposed a Bill to extend the boundaries of the city into the Vale of Glamorgan. It seems uncanny to me that that proposal, put some 70 years ago and for whatever reason never achieved, should now be a proposal that I support. I am happy to let the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate have a copy of that because I believe that he will find that to be extremely interesting. On 3rd November the South Wales Echo headlined the local government proposals by saying:
"Our big chance to make Cardiff world class".
It too believes that Cardiff should be extended.
Many tens of thousands of people come regularly to Cardiff to watch international soccer and rugby. Many thousands travel long distances to see those events. Indeed, only recently we had people from thousands of miles away—from the United States of America—to see the two British boxers fighting for the world heavyweight championship. That is the first time this century that that has happened in the United Kingdom and it was Cardiff that was chosen as the venue for it.
Many thousands of people travel long distances to shop in Cardiff. It has a shopping precinct which is regularly in the top three or four in the United Kingdom and can compare with anything that the rest of the United Kingdom has to offer. Many thousands of people come to listen to the wonderful music of the Welsh National Opera, which plays regularly in Cardiff. Many thousands of people come to Cardiff to listen to the BBC Welsh Symphony Orchestra. Many tens of thousands of young people come regularly to the Arms Park to listen to pop music. Cardiff has everything to offer as a capital city except space. I beg the Secretary of State and the noble and learned Lord seriously to consider whether the objectives that the Welsh Office and successive Secretaries of State have charged the development corporation with can possibly be achieved if Cardiff is constrained within its present boundaries.
I said earlier that I am quite happy to let the noble and learned Lord have a copy of the Western Mail, which I
1306
have with me. However, I should like to give him one final piece of advice. Marty speakers today have said that in many respects the Bill is seriously flawed. But I believe that the noble and learned Lord will also have recognised the fact that the passion has really been about where the boundaries should be drawn. Therefore, if he and the Secretary of State want an easy life we are quite happy to offer it to them provided that, they accept our suggestions.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, once again I rise to speak in this Chamber with some fear. However, on this occasion I rise as a mere Englishman to intervene in what has been a particularly Welsh debate. That is perhaps a very good reason for a discreet man to sit down again with some speed. However, having put my hand to the hoe, I intend to continue.
I begin by inviting your Lordships to consider two generalisations which I am afraid I accept—dangerous though that may be. The first is that there is no ideal and Utopian structure for local government. If you look around the world you find a multitude of organisations, a multitude of sizes of authority, and a multitude of different managerial structures, which all work. Therefore, we do not have a straightforward answer.
My second generalisation is that there are no proposals that might be brought before this House—or, I suspect, any other House—that would not be immediately highly controversial, even when suggested by a Welsh Secretary of State. I can say that with absolute certainty because any proposals for change would immediately affect all existing authorities which would suddenly become protagonists of a case for continuing as they are or for being adjusted in a different way.
With that background, we have a little difficulty. However, if the Bill does represent—as I hope it does—the end of a long and weary road, then we should not only welcome it but also support it. If, in the process, we see some old names coming back on to the local government map, then, again, we should welcome it.
I invite the House to consider a somewhat different aspect of the Bill. The preamble under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill" in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
"The measures in this Bill will result in transitional costs estimated on the basis of a report prepared by consultants to be between £65 million and £150 million over 15 years. These will be offset from April 1996 by continuing savings in public expenditure. The precise level of these will depend on decisions to be taken by the new councils on such matters as staffing levels and management structures".
The Bill clearly puts great responsibility where it should properly lie; that is, in the hands of locally elected representatives. I strongly welcome that fact, but I have become cynical in my old age. Moreover, in this House, where perhaps we might have to take a somewhat wider view, while we should undoubtedly welcome the principle we may also feel some concern for the council tax payer in the Principality.
The Bill proposes the replacement of the existing structure of eight counties and 37 districts with a new structure of 21 unitary authorities. The process of

1307
change will be complex and difficult. In the changes, which I welcome, housing and social services will come back under one authority rather than being operated by separate administrations as at present. The number of planning authorities will also be reduced which should make for the more efficient use of resources. Such factors give one hope that the economies mentioned in the preamble may come on stream.
However, behind the good points there are more shadowy and difficult areas to consider. I make no apology for raising the issue of trading standards officers once again. I do so because it highlights the dilemma. Your Lordships may recall a Question tabled last Tuesday by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, concerning the future of trading standards officers in the reorganisation of local government. The noble Lord asked the Question in the context of the whole of the United Kingdom. At present, there are eight trading standards offices in Wales. Professional opinion, supported, I understand, by business and commerce, has it that if there is to be change, the service will be strengthened by reducing the number of offices, not increasing them.
During discussion on the noble Lord's Question, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, understandably advanced the cause for the city of Portsmouth to run its own office. Here we have the crux of a dilemma that will face those newly elected members in 1995 or early 1996. On the one hand, they will have the opportunity to create their own trading standards office which, one might think, would go easily alongside that of environmental health inspectors. However, as we have heard, those disciplines are separate and small offices would only provide limited career structures as well as requiring expensive investment. On the other hand, those same new councillors could decide on a scheme of co-operation which maintained the existing structure or something like it. Alternatively, they could decide upon an even more streamlined structure. However, they might consider that that would be to belittle their own efficiency and effectiveness.
The case of trading standards offices illustrates clearly the problems that the new members will face. However, there are other similar issues. For example, the new councils, as highway authorities, will serve communities of, say, an average 125,000 people. In those circumstances, highways offices are likely to be limited in size and scope and so small that they can only concentrate on essential maintenance, minor improvements and complaints. They will not be resourced to develop high levels of engineering skills and expertise. And, again, there will be limited career opportunities.
A related problem is that the Welsh Office, with its own responsibilities for trunk roads, has in the past been able to make use of the highways offices in the Principality as its agent. I find myself wondering how far that historic arrangement will be able to continue in the new circumstances. But, again, perhaps schemes of co-operation will come to the rescue.
I could continue giving such examples for a long time. The specialist facilities provided for the education service and social services can neither be divided easily
1308
nor can they be duplicated without great expense. We have not yet touched today on two vital services—the fire service and the police service. I accept that a Bill to deal with the police force will appear this Session. I do not doubt that in the case of both services the Home Office is already in deep discussion with the Welsh Office. We do not know what the results might be. In any event, before there are any conclusions, I hope we will be told that there is to be consultation with local authorities in Wales. Not to have that consultation would endanger, if not absolutely break, the strong democratic link which at present exists between those services and the communities they serve.
The new councillors in 1995 or 1996 will bear a heavy responsibility. The use of the expenditure methodology employed in England, and accepted by the Department of the Environment and the Local Government Commission, would suggest a wider range of transitional costs than are mentioned in the preamble to the Bill, with a higher upper limit. Whether those costs are ever recovered will depend on a multitude of small decisions taken in a large number of authorities. I wish the new councillors the very best of success and good fortune but I say to the people of Wales let the buyer beware—caveat emptor!
6.1 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, apart from congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, on his excellent maiden speech, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on some fairly astute guesswork. Yes, he is absolutely right. My sole contribution to the debate today concerns the well-being of the three national parks in Wales. I am able to speak as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks and in this respect I share a common interest with another vice-president, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on the Opposition Front Bench.
The three parks, the Brecon Beacons, Snowdonia and the Pembrokeshire Coast, are administered by county council committees. After local government reform in Wales has taken place, we need to consider carefully how they can be best administered in the future. I therefore support the relevant clauses in this Bill to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred in his opening remarks. These clauses upgrade these three parks from committee parks to planning boards, thus putting them on a par with the Lake District and the Peak District in England today.
However, what your Lordships will not yet know is that early next year I intend introducing a Private Member's Bill which will set up independent authorities to run national parks in England and Wales. The debate today gives me a chance to make clearer the relationship between the Local Government (Wales) Bill and my own Private Member's Bill.
There has been much concern that in implementing the reform of local government in England and Wales the future of the national parks would be left in uncertainty. In 1991 the influential National Parks Review Panel recommended that all the national parks in England and Wales should be run by independent

1309
authorities. These would be free-standing and accountable within local government. The Government supported this and promised to introduce legislation. However, this was not included in the Queen's Speech this year, as had been hoped.
The timetable of local government reorganisation means that there is an urgent need for legislation to be introduced now so that we can assure the future of national parks. The clauses in the Local Government (Wales) Bill and my Private Member's Bill seek to address this problem. There is no conflict between the two. Both ensure that disruption to the parks during local government reorganisation is minimised and that the authorities will be better able to concentrate on the administration of the parks themselves.
The two Bills are not seeking to do the same thing. My Bill will set up independent authorities, while I understand that the national park clauses in the Local Government (Wales) Bill are an interim measure to set up planning boards. Today's Bill sets out to do only what is necessary to secure the reorganisation of local government in Wales. A more comprehensive approach to the problems of national parks is not possible within its framework. However, to provide reassurance for the national parks in Wales, the provisions to allow the creation of national park boards will for the present remain in the Bill before your Lordships today. Should my Private Member's Bill be successful, I understand that the Welsh Office proposes to adopt my joint Wales and England solution, establishing common administrative arrangements for both Welsh and English national parks. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, observed earlier, the two Bills together represent a belt-and-braces strategy.
6.5 p.m
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure that everyone will agree that we have had an interesting debate in that we have heard excellent speeches from noble Lords on both sides of this House. I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, on his wonderful and constructive speech. I am sure we shall hear a great deal from him in the years to come. I hope on this occasion that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will have listened to the noble Lord's comments and to his proposals for Mid Wales.
For better or for worse, I began my political career as a county councillor—as a mere boy—on Cardiganshire County Council, winning, if I remember rightly, by just nine votes. What a wonderful achievement that seemed to me then. Little did I think at that time that about 40 years later I would have the privilege of addressing your Lordships in this House on the subject of local government. But here I am having served 21 years as a county councillor and 18 years as a Member of the other place. Therefore I have some qualifications, but not many.
First, I wish to congratulate the Government on at last recognising the dreadful mistake they made in 1973 by creating monster authorities and unnecessary confusion and bureaucracy in multi-tier local government in Wales. We are all surely pleased that the principle of unitary authorities has now been accepted as
1310
the best way of sustaining local democracy. On behalf of my fellow "Cardis" I must also congratulate the Government on restoring the old and historic county of Cardiganshire, Sir Aberteifi, a close community that was never quite overwhelmed in the larger, artificial county of Dyfed but always felt uneasy in that context.
However, my praise for the Government can go no further, as the Bill, as has been pointed out so eloquently, fails on a number of counts. Having promised at the beginning of the consultation period to listen to the views of the local communities, why have the Government in so many cases defied strongly held convictions and trampled on local sensibilities? Is it ignorance or arrogance? We all know that the Secretary of State, despite his many talents, has little knowledge of Wales, but should he not have read the promises of his immediate predecessor? We were given to believe that the new unitary authorities were to be based on a community identity and not on cost-effectiveness, which seems, sadly, to be the only guideline for this Government.
We in Wales believe that there are more important considerations than cost-effectiveness. I can do no better at this stage than quote from the letter to the Secretary of State from the Chief Executive of the Ymgyrch Meirionnydd Campaign which states:
"failure to grant unitary status to Meirionnydd will have a disastrous effect on this district, marginalising a rural economy already devastated by the closure of the power station at Trawsfynydd".
He goes on to say:
"I make no apology for telling you that by destroying the cohesiveness and self-respect which their own local authority brings them, you threaten the communities themselves and endanger a distinctive way of life with which, sadly, you cannot be familiar".
That last sentence says it all. Its sentiment is echoed by other equally historic and cohesive communities in Wales which the Secretary of State has seen fit to destroy in his master plan.
My noble friend Lord Hooson has already made a convincing case for Montgomeryshire. I endorse his argument. I shall not comment further because he has made an excellent case.
The newly created unitary authority of Mid Wales is surely a clumsy beast, far too large for its purpose. It is an act of sheer vandalism to destroy the old communities of Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire. "Oh, but they are too small and sparsely populated", I hear some noble Lords say. I took the trouble to ask about unitary authorities in Scotland. Like my noble friend Lord Hooson, I discovered that there are three separate authorities which have smaller populations than Radnorshire, which is the smallest Welsh authority at present. They are Shetland, with a population of 22,163, Orkney with 19,228 and the Western Isles with a similar population. Radnorshire has a population of more than 23,000, while Montgomeryshire has a population of 55,000 and Breconshire 41,000.
If the Mid Wales authority is established, against the wishes of practically everyone, then we shall have an area covering a quarter of the whole of Wales, 100 miles from end to end, with a population of 120,000 and including vastly different communities. That cannot be

1311
called local government by any stretch of the imagination. Surely it is possible for three separate unitary authorities to coexist within that vast area. Is there no way they can arrange to provide certain services to each other within those unitary authorities?
On the other hand, if I cannot persuade your Lordships of the case for three separate authorities, why not have a wise compromise? A very good case has been made by Brecknock Borough Council for a unitary authority based on Brecon and Radnor, with Montgomeryshire as a separate authority. That I could just about accept as a second best solution. I cannot tolerate the Mid Wales solution, and neither can the people of Wales.
Again we come back to the lack of sensitivity to local and indeed Welsh aspirations in this matter. I do not see how the Government cannot be more pliable in their dealings. Why go out of their way to upset the people of Merthyr Tydfil, Merioneth, Blaenau Gwent, Brecon and Radnor? What can they gain from that? Having made similar decisions in the 1973 reorganisation, they should now take the opportunity to put matters right and not perpetuate their mistakes.
Alas, I do not believe that this Government are a listening government. That convinces me more than ever that the only real answer to the reorganisation of government within Wales —to bring government closer to the people—is to set up a Welsh Parliament and under it a single tier of local government conforming to local communities. I feel sure that that will come, and much sooner than many may imagine. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, let us hope that we shall have our Welsh Parliament by the turn of the century.
Finally, let us look once more at the four smallest counties in Wales—Merioneth, Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor. Radnor is the smallest. It is unique in more ways than one. Some 75 per cent. of its people are involved with agriculture. They have the best show in the world—the Royal Welsh Show. There is no doubt about that. We have mentioned those three unitary authorities in Scotland. Those islands are all surrounded by water. Radnorshire may be small, but it has been big enough for the past 50 years to extract water from its hills for the millions of people living in Birmingham, the Midlands and the South East of England. Many people gave up their farms; villages were given up. I believe that one good deed deserves another.
My message to the noble and learned Lord and our Secretary of State for Wales is: before we sit down at Committee stage think again and try to improve this Bill and give the people of Brecon, the people of Radnor and the people of Montgomery and Merioneth what they deserve, their own unitary authorities.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for introducing the Bill; to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for telling him what is wrong with it; to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for explaining to him in detail what local government really needs, especially in Powys and Sir Drefaldwyn; to the noble
1312
Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, my teacher, who celebrated Mrs. Carys Pugh, the saviour of Rhondda's name; and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for adding his voice on the importance of the South Wales valleys.
I should like to add my tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon. He got the best laugh of the afternoon when he said that a Welsh assembly would add a level of democracy that—and I think I heard him correctly —"we were trying to abolish". I am sure that was a slip of the tongue. Those of us who knew and loved his father will recognise a chip off the old block.
Let us go back to basics and to the White Paper on which the Bill is built. In the very head and forefront of its text the White Paper offers us "The Reasons for Reorganisation". First:
"the present system of local government in Wales is not widely understood".
"By whom is it not understood?", we may ask. What examination of which people was undertaken in order to establish that truth? And who marked the examination papers?
Next, the White Paper states that the present system does not:
"sufficiently reflect people's identification with their own communities and localities".
How did the Government assemble the evidence which forced them to conclude that identification with their community was so important to all Welsh people that they simply must have more of it, and that this was the way to give it to them?
Thirdly, the Government find that:
"it is now clear that the replacement of the old counties … has not secured wholehearted public support".
Again, I ask, "How did they quantify the wholeheartedness of this support or the lack of it? Who asked the questions of whom? Who drew up the questionnaire?"
The White Paper presented no evidence whatsoever. Bold, bald assertion is all that it offers.
The White Paper was published in March 1993. Nine months later the Welsh Office was delivered of this fat, bouncing, baby Bill which, we are told, was preceded by no fewer than 30 months of discussions. Your Lordships might then expect proposals which had the broad support of the people and the organisations of Wales. There is no such consensus. The Bill has been received with dismay, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said. My noble friend Lord Brooks was equally unimpressed with it.
The truth is that the Government have managed to combine European business and professional opinion against the Bill's proposals. The Confederation of British Industry, the trade unions in Wales, the Association of European Regions, local authority associations and professional bodies have all, for various reasons, expressed concern about what is proposed. Let us put it this way: if you asked the people of Wales whether they would prefer to have local government reform or 3,000 more policemen or teachers, I think we know what the answer would be.
In Wales, this discussion has been mainly a matter of officials reporting confidentially to the Secretary of State and councillors. The Secretary of State's predecessor was asked to make those reports public. He

1313
refused. Why, my Lords, did he refuse? Is this the open government so beloved of the Prime Minister? Is this in conformity with the spirit of the Citizen's Charter? No, my Lords. He refused because he dared not do otherwise, knowing what those reports contained. The voice of local people on this expensive reform of local government has simply not been heard. So much for accountability to the people; so much for democracy.
And what will be the cost of this stately dance to the Government's music? No one seems to have much idea. The consultants engaged by the Secretary of State can only suggest costs in a range of £66 million to £153 million. The Association of District Councils naturally favours a figure at the lower end of the range. The Association of County Councils goes off the scale altogether, and calculates a cost of,
"at least £200 million, which is equivalent to some 10 per cent. of local government expenditure, in the current year".
Perhaps I may ask the Minister, "Who is right?" Can he give your Lordships' House six cogent, factual reasons to support this answer?
Again, we must consider not only how much but who pays? It looks less than likely that the Government will be able to provide the additional resources required in the light of their recently published expenditure plans. So does that mean that the whole of the transitional costs will have to be met by local government from within existing resources at the expense of service provision? That would be like requiring the condemned man to pay a contribution towards his gallows.
Yet even assuming the cost at a conservative £100 million, how can such expenditure be justified at a time like this when the public sector borrowing requirement has priorities which add to such a vast sum? A sum of £100 million would surely be a saving worth making when there is no urgent necessity to spend that money and no welcome for this pointless administrative reshuffle from the people of Wales.
Yet at the very heart and centre of what is here proposed, lie one flat contradiction and one deeply undemocratic intention on which several noble Lords have touched, although none more cogently than my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. The Chief Executive of the Commission for England has stated in evidence that a unitary authority needs a population of 150,000 to 200,000 to be viable. But only eight of the proposed Welsh authorities come near this level. Are 13 of them then not viable; or is the Welsh voter a totally different animal from his English counterpart across the border? Alternatively, can those little authorities be made viable if they create a large network of indirectly accountable joint managements which would make a mockery of the unitary concept and reintroduce the two-tier system they were created to replace?
The Government cannot have it both ways. Either Cardiganshire, with a population of 66,700, is viable or it is not. If it is, then the Chief Executive of the Commission for England is wrong. If it is not, why is Cardiganshire afforded principal area status? The answer may be that it may be viable if it has a large number of the joint committees which the Bill proposes. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies made that point. Such associations should, of course, be voluntary. But
1314
what if co-operation and collaboration are not volunteered—and the history of Wales from the medieval period on shows that we are not very good at it. What happens then? Clause 30 happens then. And Clause 30 gives the Secretary of State almost unlimited power, against which there is no appeal, to do almost anything he likes if he is not satisfied that a direction issued under Clause 29 is being obeyed. By his own mere motion he may establish a joint authority which will act for him until he is satisfied. That is a mockery of democracy. It is centralisation in excelsis, and it is not to be endured.
The same is true of the residuary body and the staff commission, every one of whose members will be personally selected and appointed by the Secretary of State without even the necessity of consulting anyone or anybody before he exercises his right. Those bodies are vital to us. But can we really feel confidence in the political impartiality of bodies appointed in this way by a Secretary of State—I say this gently—whose experience of Wales has been, to say the least, intermittent and tangential between birth and appointment?
I suppose those who value the Welsh language may extract a crumb of comfort from the statement that at least one member appointed to the staff commission shall be Welsh speaking, though is it not passing strange that the residuary body is deemed perfectly capable of carrying out its mandate without a single Welsh-speaking member?
What is very clear is that great damage will be done to the existing service providers if their service exceeds the boundary of one unitary authority. Let us take, for example, the library service. The Welsh Library Association believes that the present service works well, and it is at the coal face. Its fear is that much of the effectiveness and efficiency of the service will be lost if library services are operated by individual unitary authorities. The number of professional and specialist staff available to a unitary authority would be severely limited. Training would be a problem; promotion would be extremely difficult. The unified computer system for bibliographical control, circulation of materials and information retrieval, could not be divided up into new authority areas. County-based software programs would be lost. Book collections have been built up since 1972 and before on a county-wide basis. The new unitary authorities will be left with unbalanced collections which will not meet the users' needs. The same is true of buildings.
Such considerations lead the WLA to conclude that if unitary authorities are given the sole responsibility for library provision,
"there would be a serious, immediate and long term deterioration in services which could only be overcome in time with large scale expenditure".
Libraries are a statutory commitment. Museums and galleries are not. But they are just as important in the cultural structure, and the advice given by museum bodies to the Secretary of State is balanced and judicious. In March 1993, the Council of Museums in Wales said,
"We make no judgment on the number and pattern of LA, provision advanced in the White Paper other than in the context

1315
of museum provision and we reiterate that a meaningful and effective museum service across the Principality would benefit from greater, strategic management. This would be more readily achieved with a pattern of fewer, larger unitary authorities than one of many and smaller … CMW urges the Secretary of State to pay particular attention to safeguarding the integrity of existing countywide collections and of maintaining their specialist museum support services … so that current benefits are not lost."
One of the great opportunities that the Bill misses is the chance to lay down that all local authorities shall have a statutory duty to promote the provision of museums of high standards within their areas, and will be required to produce a strategic museums policy. If only the Government had had the courage to take this step, the entire museum service would have risen up and called them blessed. But the Government could not think that far or that deep.
Just as important is the position of the national parks. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, reminded us of this. The process of local government reorganisation could leave the administration of those valuable areas in most uncertain hands. Clauses 19 and 20 provide for the upgrading of the committee parks into boards, which is a good first step towards the legislation on national parks that the Government have promised, provided always that there is proper representation of local interests.
Another advance in that direction was outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, one of my fellow vice-presidents of the Council for National Parks. To his Private Member's Bill, which would set up independent authorities to run all the national parks in England and Wales, I wish to add my personal wholehearted support. Of course, the long-promised government legislation to implement the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel would be the best strategy of all for us to consider now. Let us hope that it will not be too long delayed.
We have seen some silly Bills in the course of this Session. The Education Bill, execrated on all sides of your Lordships' House, was one; here is another. The best thing the Government could do would be to take it away, shred it and forget it until they have the leisure and the money to consult properly and legislate sensibly. Were it not for the convention of the House, we on these Benches would feel sorely tempted to move that the Bill be not read a second time. As it is, we shall certainly subject it to rigorous reappraisal at the Committee stage, when my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel will join us on the Front Bench.
My Lords, this Bill is not democratic, not timely, not necessary and not wanted by the people of Wales. And, in all charity, that is the very best I can say for it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in the course of the debate many topics have been raised. Many noble Lords have spoken with great authority and voiced opinions which have differed widely. If anything, it proves the truth of what was said, that in matters of local government it is not possible to please everyone. Doubtless when we come to Committee many of the topics which have been raised this afternoon will be
1316
raised again in more detail. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if in the short time available to me this afternoon I simply deal briefly with certain of the more general points and themes which have been mentioned in the course of the debate.
Before I begin, perhaps I may add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to my noble friend Lord Kenyon on his maiden speech. In the course of it he mentioned the date for starting the new councils and asked whether the date of the elections was finally settled. I gave your Lordships what is at present thought to be the most desirable date, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has not finally made up his mind and will take into account the points made by my noble friend.
Of course, we on the Government Benches accept that local government is a serious matter and obviously local government in Wales touches people in Wales deeply. I think I am right in saying that it also appears that at least the principle of unitary authorities is accepted by all sides of the House. There is a slight tendency for people to wish that a particular local authority in their area was somewhat different from the one proposed, but I think the general principle of unitary authorities is accepted and we can proceed on that basis.
I understand that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches say that they accept the principle within the context of a wider reform of government for Wales, with the idea of an assembly. I fully understand that that is a deeply held view and it is an important issue. But perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go into the matter in great detail this evening because we are concerned with local government, not the wider question of an assembly. However, it seemed to me from time to time that what was being suggested was something which would in some respects take functions away from the local authorities envisaged in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and others drew attention to the quangos. I am well aware that that matter has exercised noble Lords and people more generally in Wales much over recent times. I do not think that there is any question of a blanket condemnation of quangos because I understood the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, to praise the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, of which he is a member. However, if I do not go into the matter of quangos in great detail, it is because the Bill does nothing to set up quangos, with two exceptions. They are the residuary body and the staff commission. These are very limited life quangos, if one likes to use the term. The residuary body is envisaged to last for five years, the staff commission for three. It is hard to see that any other kind of organisation would be suitable for either of those functions. For the rest, it is important to notice that the Bill takes no functions away from local authorities. On the contrary, it is designed simply to set up new unitary authorities and to transfer the existing functions of those authorities to the new ones.
In that respect, certain comments were made on joint arrangements. Perhaps I may simply say that there is no desire on the part of the Secretary of State to rush to use the powers in Clause 30 which are to set up joint authorities. It seemed to be suggested that that would be

1317
a way in which the Secretary of State would use his powers to scatter a whole lot of new joint authorities, some of them a kind of quango.
That there is no desire to rush into that is shown by the fact that Clause 30 is the culmination of a three-stage process, beginning with Clause 28, which is on the provision of information to the Secretary of State, and Clause 29, which is a power for the Secretary of State to give directions to the councils about arrangements. Only if that does not work, in the final analysis under Clause 30 does the Secretary of State have that power.
It is important to notice that those are transitional provisions only, all due to expire on 31st March 1999. Again, that is not something which suggests that this is a Bill under which the Secretary of State is trying to spread quangos throughout Wales. That is not the purpose. On the contrary, the purpose is to transfer the functions of local government.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for a moment. Can the Minister assure the House that there is no basis for the suggestion in the Western Mail that the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office have in mind to merge a number of quangos, notably the Welsh Development Agency and the Land Authority for Wales, together with other quangos, in order to control the economic development of the whole of Wales?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, if I may say so, that is rather wide of the debate. I do not know the answer on the report in the newspaper, but I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister this. In the event of the Secretary of State exercising the power in Clause 30 and establishing a joint board, that joint board will not be a temporary board; it will continue in perpetuity. Is that correct?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the power to create is time-limited, but thereafter the board exists. However, I have to add in clarification of what was said earlier in the debate that the power is exercisable only under the process of an affirmative resolution, as the noble Lord said in his speech. So, contrary to what was said, there is parliamentary control over the matter.
Play was made of costs. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, seemed to wish to set a kind of examination paper on costs. The subject is dealt with in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill and it is put the way it is quite deliberately. The Government have never predicted precisely what the costs of the reform would be and they cannot do so. They cannot do so because the cost of this reform at the end of the day will depend on various factors which will be in the control of the new local authorities and not of the Government. In particular, it will depend on matters such as how many staff are transferred and how many staff are made redundant. Obviously, redundancy costs are a very important factor. That is a matter that we cannot predict. It will depend on decisions that are taken by the local authorities. Another matter will be, for example, what changes in accommodation are required.
1318
Again, we cannot predict those changes because they will depend on the way in which the new authorities choose to run themselves.
However, I do not believe that many of the figures that have been suggested will prove to be true. For example, it must be remembered that the vast majority of staff—from time to time there has been (I am not saying in the course of this debate) scaremongering on the matter—will transfer. For example, teachers will be required to go on teaching. The main redundancies will of course be in the higher grades of administration, and where one is merging various authorities, there will be some redundancies. But, equally, in certain cases there will be occasions when more officials are required because one will be transferring functions from a county level to the new authorities. It is for those reasons that we do not predict, and I cannot give a prediction on the precise cost of this reform beyond what is stated in the memorandum.
Perhaps the main theme of the debate, as was said, related to boundaries. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, said that if we wished to have a quiet life we should change the boundaries. Somebody else said that we had been trying to make it as difficult as possible. In the course of the debate many noble Lords spoke for many different areas. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about Montgomeryshire; the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, referred to the Rhondda; the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to Cynon Valley; and the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, put in a word for some sort of greater Cardiff. Those are all issues which clearly arise and are deeply felt in those areas.
As I said in my opening remarks, we have gone a long way in this Bill towards reviving the old shires. Contrary to what has been suggested, I understand that the Bill has been very welcome in many parts of Wales precisely because it is to restore those old shires—for example, in Pembrokeshire and in Flintshire in the north east. But, understandably, there are examples where that is not being done and people say that the Secretary of State has proved insensitive.
In the light of the consultation—of which there has been a great deal—as we have heard, changes have been made between the time of the White Paper and what we have today in the Bill. Changes have been made, for example, in the area of Llanelly and in other areas. They have been made in response to representations. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said, the change in the name of Rhondda was brought in precisely to reflect the kind of representations that were made. So the Government have not overlooked local sentiment.
But neither is it possible—it never was thought to be possible at the time of the White Paper—to be guided purely by matters of local sentiment. The Government have had to balance the desirability of having a local area which is resonant with local feeling with what is needed to have a base for viable local government. As I said at the outset, it is not always easy to get those two factors into a balance which will please everybody. It is plain from listening to many noble Lords that some people think that we have got the balance wrong because the authorities are too small, and other people are saying that the balance is wrong because the

1319
authorities are too large. I cannot go into all the arguments on the various decisions. But I can say that they have certainly been taken only after very careful consideration and after considering the various representations which have been made.
The case which has been raised most often in the course of the debate is that of Montgomery, for which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, put forward what is called a masterly brief. Noble Lords have heard that case put forward, and, indeed, it was put forward on an earlier occasion. I believe that it was indicated the last time that local government was reformed, when much the same issue arose. On that matter I should mention one particular point. Reference was made from time to time to a promise which it was said that the then Secretary of State made that Montgomery would indeed be a unitary authority. I was not present, but I have been told that the Secretary of State did not make any such promise. He certainly supported the idea, but he says that he did not make any such promise. What he did was in line with what had been done in the proposals which he had made just before the election, but, as I understand it, he did not go further. I understand that it may be that because of those proposals people feel disappointed—
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. My information comes from the Conservative chairman of the association, who was there at the meeting. All the Conservative members were there. They have been very powerful supporters of the pro-Montgomeryshire view, having had an undertaking, as I understand it, from the Secretary of State on this matter.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am of course aware of the great feeling that exists among Conservatives as well. But I have been informed that no undertaking was given and no promise was made, although strong support was expressed for the idea.
On this matter, I simply say that there is no a priori feeling, for example, against having a Montgomeryshire which is independent. The fact that it was contained in the earlier versions in 1992 shows that very possibility. Since that time, more consultation has gone on and consideration has been given to all the various factors, including the position of Breconshire and Radnorshire. The Government have concluded that the best solution is that we should have a larger authority, called in the Bill Mid Wales, though if noble Lords feel that Powys would be a preferable name, then that is not a matter with which the Government have difficulty.
It was asked at one point in the debate: have the Government finally made up their mind; will they not respond at all? The Government have obviously thought about the matter very carefully. The Secretary of State's proposals are in the Bill. The position is that the Secretary of State will of course listen to what is said in debate in this House and in the other place. But these are the proposals that have been put forward.
The decentralisation proposals in Clauses 26 and 27 have received perhaps a somewhat grudging welcome from noble Lords. They are in many ways a very useful proposal. They give places like
1320
Montgomeryshire—though not just Powys; Merionithshire as well as other areas might find them an attractive way of going forward—a way in which, in having the overall larger authority, local feeling can nonetheless be reflected and decisions in respect of such matters as planning, housing and so on can be taken by local councillors.
I have no doubt that in Committee we shall have to discuss exactly the way in which those proposals will be serviced, among other matters. But the intention of the proposals is that they should provide a way in which local feeling can be represented.
In closing, let me refer to two other matters. The issue of national parks was raised particularly by my noble friend Lord Norrie. Clauses in the Bill are in many ways an exercise in tidying up existing legislation on the matter; but, most importantly, in establishing the joint boards they also go some way to ensuring proper financing for the national parks boards. That is something which I am sure your Lordships will welcome. When the Bill of my noble friend Lord Norrie comes before the House, no doubt your Lordships will wish to consider the other proposals with regard to the development of national parks.
On the matter of trading standards, which was raised by a number of noble Lords and especially my noble friend Lord Elton, the Government are aware of the anxiety. But we consider that there is no reason why the trading standards officers should not be able to conduct their affairs in the context of the new unitary authorities. I accept that there are many technical matters to consider—legislation and so forth. In that respect they are not much different from environmental health officers, who work at present in the context of the districts. The Government would envisage that, where appropriate, the various authorities could co-operate in providing the services. It may be possible for me to write in more detail to my noble friend regarding the precise arrangements which will be used for dealing with those matters.
As I said, the debate threw up many issues. But to many of those we shall doubtless return in more detail in Committee. In the meantime, I commend this important Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
6.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd November be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order will amend the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 and the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. I would like to stress that it is not related to the

1321
Government's plans for the privatisation of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland, or the reform of charging arrangements for those services.
Its principal objectives are to introduce national drinking water quality standards into Northern Ireland law; to assist with improving the quality of waterways and with the control of water pollution. In addition the order contains a number of provisions which revise, update and give greater consistency to water and sewerage law in Northern Ireland.
Article 4 will introduce national drinking water quality standards which incorporate those of the European Communities Drinking Water Directive into Northern Ireland law through regulations and will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Department of the Environment, which is the sole public water supplier in Northern Ireland, has been applying the current standards by administrative means in advance of the legislation. The directive is currently being reviewed by the European Commission and when the outcome of that is known the order will enable implementation of revised standards.
Drinking water quality in Northern Ireland is high and compares favourably with the rest of the United Kingdom. Results for 1992 showed that 99 per cent. of water quality tests in Northern Ireland complied with national standards. However, the order will provide greater protection to consumers in Northern Ireland by providing the necessary legislative framework for both public and private supplies. It will also apply the relevant standards to water supplied for domestic and food production purposes.
The department's environment service will monitor and publish information about the quality of both public and private water supplies. Consistent with the principles of the Citizen's Charter for Northern Ireland, a register containing detailed information about the quality of public water supplies throughout Northern Ireland has been established since July 1992 by the department and is available for inspection by the public free of charge.
For private supplies, the department will now have power under Article 4 to take remedial action where such a supply is either unwholesome or insufficient. It will be required to maintain a register of such supplies and prepare an action plan where a risk to public health has been identified.
Article 16 of the order will facilitate the introduction of a number of EC directives affecting the quality of waterways by conferring powers on the Department of the Environment to prescribe standards and set objectives for them. The directives involved relate to quality of surface water intended for drinking water supplies and quality of waters to support freshwater fish and shellfish.
I draw your Lordships' attention specifically to Article 17 which will increase the maximum fine on summary conviction for a water pollution offence from £2,000 to £20,000. That substantial increase in the fines for water pollution offences will assist the department in the control of water pollution and will fulfil a commitment to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment to bring in such a
1322
provision at an early opportunity. That will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd November be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the order is welcomed on this side of the House and I thank the noble Earl for explaining its provisions. In particular, it will enhance the quality of water supply which is used in food and drink manufacture or intended for human consumption.
The Minister said that the order applies to possible European Community directives. Perhaps I can ask the Minister about that. In one of last Sunday's newspapers I read that the relevant directives had been either torn up or substantially amended after last Saturday's meetings in Brussels. I understand that that was because they were felt to be over-prescriptive and scientifically out of date.
The noble Earl did not refer specifically to that development. If those press reports are correct, perhaps he could inform the House precisely what happened in Brussels last Saturday in respect of the directives. If it is the case that the directives are being reviewed, as suggested by another report from Brussels, is it intended that they will be weakened as a result of that review?
The question therefore arises of where do we go from here. Can the Minister confirm that, irrespective of what emanates from Brussels, there will be a programme to upgrade the water treatment plants in Northern Ireland by 1995? Or is it to be at a later date? Will there be a programme to update the circulation system? If so, when will that be completed? Who will pay the costs? Will there be a contribution by the Northern Ireland Office or will the costs be born in their entirety by the water undertakers and consumers? I ask that question because of the rumblings about the cost of applying the EC directives.
It is unclear from the terms of the order what are the rights of appeal against a charge levied by the department in respect of the costs to be incurred by it in implementing the order. I would be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on that.
As the Minister confirmed, the order places a duty on the department to monitor the quality of private water supplies. Clearly that is right. I understand from the order that the procedures must be set out in regulations. Can the Minister tell us when the monitoring regulations will be ready for publication?
I note that the order specifically excludes the right of an individual who believes that he has suffered as a result of the application of the order to sue the department or a water undertaker for damages for breach of the statutory duty imposed on it. I am a little worried about that. It is a useful remedy which was developed over the past 50 years or so. What is the department's view on that?
Finally, I want to raise a general point regarding the application of the EC directives in Northern Ireland. It so happens that by virtue of my membership of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments I have noticed that it is usually the case that an EC directive is applied in Northern Ireland some time after—sometimes months

1323
after—it has been applied in the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely that is wrong in principle. It seems to me that no part of the United Kingdom should be denied the benefit of an EC directive which is made available to citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom. Such a denial goes against the spirit of the legislation. The question must therefore be asked: why cannot a directive be applied in Northern Ireland at the same time as it is applied in the rest of the United Kingdom? When we eventually see the Northern Ireland order it is almost verbatim with the GB legislation. If there is anything in my point, can the Minister offer, today or in writing, a satisfactory explanation of this state of affairs.
Apart from those few questions I have nothing further to say about the order except to repeat that we on these Benches approve it and welcome it.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked three or four questions, all of which I hope to be able to answer. First, he asked about the drinking water directive revision. As I think I implied, the order is necessary to provide a legislative base for the introduction of national drinking water quality standards, including those of the EC, into Northern Ireland law. Those are already applied administratively by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, which is the sole public water supplier in Northern Ireland. Certainly, the Government will examine the revised directive when it becomes available from the European Commission. Any changes which result will apply throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord mentioned the right of appeal on costs or charges. Charges for the department's water and sewerage services are set under government guidelines to reflect the cost of providing the services and must be levied equitably. It is therefore inappropriate for the Water Appeals Commission to adjudicate on essentially economic transactions by the department. Those affected can appeal to the Minister for the Environment in Northern Ireland who is responsible for provision of water and sewerage services there.
The noble Lord referred to the impact of the EC compliance programme on future charges. The additional capital expenditure and increased running costs associated with improvements in quality occurring because of compliance with European Community directives is likely to lead to increased charges for water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland, but it is not possible to indicate the rate of increase. Charges are set annually to reflect the cost of providing water and sewerage services and increasing capital expenditure for EC compliance is only one element in the charge equation. The European Commission's current revision of the drinking water directive may have an impact on the level of capital expenditure.
The noble Lord intimated that there was a delay in introducing the order. Initially, the Government considered that legislation was not required to implement the 1980 drinking water directive standards as the United Kingdom considered that they could be
1324
attained by administrative action. The extent of the capital works programme necessary to achieve standards compliance was also not fully established until 1988 when technical definitions, critical for setting operational criteria, were clarified between the United Kingdom and the European Commission. Legislation in Northern Ireland follows that first introduced for the rest of the United Kingdom in 1989. I can also tell the noble Lord that the department is a statutory water undertaker in Northern Ireland, so the system of undertakings in England and Wales is not appropriate.
If I have not answered all of the questions which the noble Lord raised I shall do so as soon as I possibly can. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1993
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that it will be convenient to consider at the same time the equivalent Scottish regulations, which were laid on the same day. I shall speak to both sets of regulations.
The regulations, which have been considered in another place, introduce changes to the parent regulations for England and Wales approved by Parliament in 1989 and for Scotland in 1990. If approved by the House, the amending regulations will come into effect in January 1994.
Since fees were introduced in 1981 they have represented an increasing proportion of local authorities' costs in determining planning applications, which are charged in accordance with the nature and size of the proposed development. Our main proposal is a general increase of 15 per cent. in fees with effect from January 1994, and a further increase of 15 per cent. from January 1995. These increases demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to meeting their objective, announced in July 1990, that fees should fully cover local authorities' costs in processing and determining planning applications. Taken together, the increases should raise the average recovery rate to more than 80 per cent. nationally.
To propose two successive increases in one amendment is not a new proposition: fees were increased in two stages in 1987. We believe that our present proposals will give local authorities a helpful degree of certainty about their future income from planning application fees. The Government consider that the increases strike the right balance between progress towards full recovery and the likely impact on the construction industry. Fees remain a very small part of developers' overall costs—considerably less than 1 per cent. There is no evidence that they act as a deterrent

1325
to development. Very few householders pay any fee at all as most minor domestic development does not require a planning application.
Let me give some indicative figures. The minimum fee for a factory or office development would rise from £120 to £140 in 1994 and to £160 in 1995, while the maximum would rise from £6,000 to £7,000 in 1994 and to £8,000 in 1995. An application to build a new house would attract a fee of £140 in 1994 and £160 in 1995. Substantial alterations to houses would be charged at £70 in 1994 and £80 in 1995. Slightly lower fee levels apply in Scotland, because costs are generally lower.
Both sets of regulations make two minor changes to the fees regime. The first, effective from January 1994, is the extension to advertisements on public seating benches of the flat rate fee, currently £120, which applies to applications for advertisements on parking meters, litter bins and bus shelters within a specified area. Because they are of a similar character it is right that applications for bench advertisements should be charged on the same flat rate basis rather than individually.
The second minor amendment concerns applications for certificates of lawful use. Since July 1992 these have been replacing established use certificates. Where application is made to convert from the old-style certificate, the fee payable is one-half of that for an equivalent planning application. When this concession was introduced last year we indicated that it would be only temporary. We proposed that the full fee be payable from January 1995.
The Government believe that users and potential beneficiaries of the development control system should meet the costs incurred in determining planning applications which would otherwise fall to be met by council tax and business rate payers generally. Even after taking into account the increase in fees proposed in the amending regulations now before your Lordships, planning application fees continue to be modest and a very small proportion of developers' overall costs. We also believe that the other proposed amendments to the fees regime are fully justified. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing these two measures, but they are not welcome. She must know that on average 85 per cent. of local government finance is provided by central government. She must also know that the extra 15 per cent. comes from council tax which, if standard spending assessments are exceeded, can be capped. Therefore, local government finance is severely constrained by central government. If the noble Baroness is arguing, as she appears to be, that planning services should in some way have their costs met, then she is going against the whole grain of local authority finance.
Furthermore, the Minister said that we are now talking about a 15 per cent. increase. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is here. He knows the
1326
arguments very well. There is a 15 per cent. increase now and another 15 per cent. increase in. January 1995. I understand from government figures the rate of inflation to be somewhere below 2 per cent. So why are the Government now saying that 15 per cent. must be added on these fees and a further 15 per cent. projected on an unknown inflation rate and an unknown cost rate in January 1995?
In practice this is a tax. I hope that the noble Baroness will come out honestly and say so. It is another tax which will fall on those who are less advantaged. Businesses can pay the extra costs. But the erection of dwelling houses and buildings referred to in Schedule 1, are all within the context of the lives of ordinary people who will have to pay. So this is yet another tax the Government are trying to impose on people, sliding it under a cost recovery programme. That simply will not work.
When the noble Baroness replies, I ask her to reflect for a moment that this is another way of inhibiting people from participating properly in the planning process. It is another way of saying, "We do not want to raise income tax. We are going to charge 15 per cent. on this and another 15 per cent. on that regardless of the cost." Is not the noble Baroness ashamed of the regulations? Would she like to withdraw them?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords. I support the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in objecting to any rise in costs, particularly when they are well above the rate of inflation. In fact the costs have been reasonable when one considers the work involved for local government. I object to the rises, but I cannot say that I object to the principle of charging. We have a spate of planning applications and they have to be taken seriously.
I wish to know the difference between an application and a deemed application. Is a deemed application a doomed application or is it one which may become an application in certain circumstances? It is a curious piece of phraseology. I am sure that the House would like to hear an explanation.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not be surprised to know that it is not my intention to withdraw the regulations. The power to set fees for planning applications was prescribed in legislation in 1980. Today we are concerned with whether the proposed increases of 15 per cent. over the current national fees scales are reasonable in all the circumstances. The Government firmly believe that they are.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the legislation enables the Government to set fees, not for the coming year, but thereafter in 1995, and on what basis they are set?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I said that to propose two successive increases in one amendment is not a new proposition. It was done in 1987. It gives local authorities the benefit of some, certainty in their plans. As the noble Lord may recall, that was welcomed by other members of the Opposition Front Bench.

1327
The noble Lord relates the issue to inflation. Of course it is good news that it is below 2 per cent. The difference that makes to the 15 per cent. is largely because of our control of inflation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I do not want to keep on interrupting the noble Baroness. Can she explain what she has just said? She referred to the difference between under 2 per cent. inflation and the 15 per cent. that she is now advocating that the House should approve of the charges, saying that that is due to the Government's successful control of inflation. Can she enlarge on that?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I shall go over the ground again. I was trying to explain that the issue we are discussing is cost recovery. It is a policy we announced it was our intention to work towards in 1990. We have proceeded gradually for the benefit of the parties involved. The noble Lord related it to inflation. I was simply pointing out that the differential was such that it gave him anxiety because of our control of inflation. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to read Hansard tomorrow.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I shall read it, but I cannot understand what the noble Baroness is saying.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the question is this: who should pay for planning applications? We believe that those people who take benefit from them should pay, not other taxpayers and business rate payers. That is the reason behind the provision. Cost recovery depends on two factors. We have commissioned research into the somewhat large variation in costs between local authorities. That is under review at the moment. I appreciate that there are anxieties. We are working towards a target which we announced some years ago of a 100 per cent. recovery.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that a deemed application reflects a retrospective application and not, as he suggested, a doomed application. I hope that that is of benefit. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Government are always ready to receive suggestions for improvement to the fees regime. I hope that sensible ideas to improve the system will continue to come from all those who have an interest in planning.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this matter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Small Businesses
7.19 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the creation of small businesses, especially with regard to the provision of finance.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with your Lordships' permission to ask the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper and I must first declare an interest in that I am the President of the Mechanical and Metal Trades Confederation which indirectly enjoys the support of upwards of 4,000 industrial concerns, a high proportion of which may be considered small.
It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that the small business sector, generally regarded as those companies employing fewer than 200 people, is the very backbone of our economy. There are close to 2 million such companies—a number which has steadily grown in recent years despite the recession—and it is a fact that if all those companies took on just one more employee, the unemployment problem which we have at present would be wiped out at a stroke. That is, of course, a wholly impracticable suggestion but nonetheless a real shot in the arm for those companies could certainly have an important and beneficial effect upon the nation's economic fortunes.
Furthermore, we are by nature a nation of entrepreneurs and our history is littered with memorials to industrialists who were, for the most part, small businessmen by any modern standards. The names of James Watt, Charles Rolls and Henry Royce spring instantly to mind, but there are of course many, many others.
What then can be done further to promote the creation and health of small businesses and what are the hurdles which we could help to lower in achieving those objectives? I should first of all say that Her Majesty's Government have in recent years implemented a wide range of measures to this end, and these I warmly welcome. Indeed, the recent Budget included some important provisions to which my noble friend will no doubt refer when he comes to reply. However, there is one problem above all to which I should like to direct your Lordships' attention and that is the provision of finance, and I refer both to the funds required for the initial start-up and for subsequent expansion and development.
It is a regrettable fact that most small businesses in this country which do not enjoy the support of a "business angel" (and I was glad to see that those splendid people have their interests properly protected in the new enterprise investment scheme announced the other day) rely to a great extent on their bank. Since the banks will only advance money by way of overdraft (which can be recalled or reduced at a moment's notice)

1329
and will not invest in equity, British entrepreneurs are left at a disadvantage compared with, for example, their German competitors.
I am not one of those who wishes to cast the banks as villains in this matter and of course they have to have regard to the interests of their depositors and shareholders, but I do wonder whether we should not be looking for a better and more easily available means of financing small companies.
Of course, I recognise that there are some institutional investors who are occasionally willing to help. But those sources are not sufficiently widely available to be considered a solution to the problem. I recognise, too, that the Government's recently enhanced loan guarantee scheme is a useful step in the right direction. But that is not designed for start-up situations and does not therefore address the whole problem.
What then is to be done? I offer no simple or easy solution and I am bound to recognise that many start-up propositions which fail to find support have not been properly thought through and are rightly rejected by banks and investors. However, I fear that there are too many excellent proposals which do not find support but which ought to do so. I know that my honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has recently been giving some thought to this matter and I look forward to hearing more about that when my noble friend replies.
Perhaps I may now touch on some other matters arising from my Question but tangential to the central theme. I refer first to the quality of business proposals put forward to banks and other investors. It is surely incumbent upon those seeking support that they ensure that their proposals have been properly thought through and have, so far as is possible, benefited from the experience of those who have tried before.
Here I think that Mr. Heseltine's one-stop shops (now to be called Business Links) may have a role to play arid I hope that my noble friend can confirm that the staff at these places are willing to provide advice to would-be businessmen as well as those currently up and running. I know that some consultancy help is available from Business Links and I hope that it is available in the circumstances to which I have referred, as in others. A well thought-out business plan is surely an essential pre-requisite for those seeking to convince their bank manager, and that is where consultants can be of real help. I hope that there is no risk that a DTI consultant likely to be in a similar line of business himself will be tempted to pour cold water on a proposition just because it might represent unwelcome competition to his own business.
Secondly, I refer to the current discussion around the question of late payment of debt. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade recently published a consultation paper on this topic which is most welcome.
I think that we need to be on our guard against introducing distortions in the relationship between companies on this matter. Furthermore, smaller companies ought to appreciate that if pressures are placed upon the traditional bogeymen —the very largest companies—then they will apply equally to the other
1330
end of the scale. Thus, small companies may find themselves obliged to pay rather more quickly than some do at present, which is not perhaps what they had in mind. Speaking for myself, I favour a code of practice in this matter rather than statutory controls and perhaps that could form part of some new or amended British standard.
However, I recognise that there are powerful arguments in favour of at least some statutory control, which the Government will want to weigh carefully. But the Government have a more direct role to play as well, particularly in areas where they have a mayor purchasing function; for example, the Ministry of Defence. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me what has happened to the code of practice, introduced some years ago in that department, relating to the prompt payment of bills by prime contractors to their smaller sub-contractors.
Perhaps I may finally refer to a matter of equal interest to firms large and small but nonetheless of importance—and that is the proposed harmonisation of export credit guarantee arrangements within the European Union. This harmonisation is intended, I gather, to apply to all business written by European credit agencies whether relating to intra-European transactions or more widely. I must say that I have considerable doubts about this proposal which will, I fear, impose a straitjacket on companies to our considerable disadvantage.
The proposed maximum level of cover of 95 per cent. is a case in point. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will argue against this unnecessary bureaucratic intervention in our commercial affairs and seek to persuade our European colleagues to dlo likewise. But at the very least we should be arguing against the 95 per cent. restriction and in favour of maximum flexibility. I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm Her Majesty's Government's position on the matter this evening.
I think that I have said enough to give your Lordships an inkling of the problems associated with the financing of smaller businesses. I look forward very much to the speeches of other noble Lords and, in particular, to that of my noble friend the Minister.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, in my maiden speech a year ago on the same topic I expressed the hope that the fiscal inequality facing small businesses, which was a major deterrent to their growth, would be removed. It is therefore a pleasure to be able to commend a number of new measures in the Budget which have gone some way to help small firms as they battle their way out of recession. The cut in interest rates is an important help. The vast majority of small businesses are reliant upon bank borrowing as their major source of finance and therefore any measure which reduces borrowing costs can only improve business cash flow.
Then there is the Chancellor's recent announcement, which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has already mentioned, the business angels initiative, the enterprise investment scheme and the proposal to create venture trusts, all of which will. encourage much-needed

1331
investment in small firms. Equally welcome is the Chancellor's intention to seize the initiative on late payments, which regrettably contribute to so many business failures.
My own family company—here I declare an interest—has survived over many decades. I preserve in my office in Savile Row a letter written in about the 1850s in which we inquired whether we could have the,
"privilege of the settlement of our account overdue these 20 years",
to which we received a reply stating:
"Sirs, I have received your letter of 14 December … and would say in reply that I am not prepared to satisfy your impertinent curiosity. Furthermore, I shall continue to shout from the housetops that you are at once the least competent and the most grasping of all the tailors in London".
But we have survived. We all know that the cost of borrowing today is much greater than it was in the last century.
The burden of legislation on small companies is great, so I welcome too the Government's initiative to cut red tape. While those measures are helpful and welcome, much more needs to be done. It must be a matter of great concern that 58 per cent. of businesses in Britain use bank overdrafts to fund their development, compared with only 31 per cent. in France and 14 per cent. in Germany. Short-term borrowing arrangements leave small firms especially vulnerable to interest rate fluctuations. Every 1 per cent. rise in bank rates costs small businesses £200 million in interest. Those added costs cannot be passed on to customers without losing competitiveness, and therefore they jeopardise cash flow and survival.
It seems curious that, while the Chancellor has given tax incentives to encourage outsiders to invest in other people's businesses through the Enterprise Investment Scheme and the Venture Capital Trust, measures which would allow small business owners to retain profits before tax in their own businesses have yet to be considered. So I was interested in what the noble Lord said about the Economic Secretary's meetings with small businesses and their representatives to examine sources of finance. I, too, will listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say on the subject. I hope that he will consider seriously the introduction of long-term financing schemes at stable rates. Such arrangements are already up and running in many other European countries, where they have significantly assisted enterprise start-up and growth.
There is one other matter of much concern to small businesses; that is, the proposal that employers will no longer be reimbursed for sick pay for the first four weeks of sickness. That will add significantly to the costs of small businesses, and will inevitably prompt discrimination against the employment of people with any history of illness. Those are often the people most in need of a job and whom society—there is such a thing as society—should seek to help.
It is a plain fact that in the world of new technologies big businesses will continue to shed labour. If we are genuinely concerned about unemployment, it is to Britain's 5 million small businesses and also to new businesses that we must look for growth. Some 10 years
1332
ago in my former constituency of Croydon, I set up an enterprise agency (Croydon Business Ventures) which to date has established 700 new businesses and created 4,000 new jobs. Small businesses employ one-third of the private sector workforce and produce one quarter of our country's turnover. It is often overlooked that 97 per cent. of all businesses in our country employ fewer than 20 people.
There is one other thing that we could all do to help employment; that is, to give a voluntary preference to goods and services produced and provided by British companies, both large and small. I know that that cannot be imposed, but we should give a voluntary preference.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on having initiated the debate. I repeat, if we wish to see Britain's economy thrive and prosper, and if we wish to see greater employment opportunities, it is to the small business sector that we must look.
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for introducing the subject because small companies are important centres for growth. It is relevant also that investment in small companies almost always has an objective of growing and creating more employment, whereas investment in large companies is designed all too often to produce the same turnover with fewer people.
My noble friend made so many good points in introducing the debate that there is not much more to be said, but I should like to make just one or two comments. There are two sides to the problem of financing small companies. There is, first, the supply of money. In general, there is no shortage, and recently the chairman of 3i has said that it has £1 billion available for investment. The question is how to exploit that availability.
Equity investments in small companies are important, but there is the problem of initial expenses. Therefore investments below £500,000, or perhaps £250,000, are unattractive to venture capital companies, but in the early stages many small companies require not large investment but investment of perhaps £100,000 or even £50,000. That is difficult to come by. Too often, as my noble friend said, those requirements are met by bank overdrafts—short-term money on call. It provides little stability in the longer-term, and some security, which is seldom available, is usually demanded. But most of all, in difficult trading conditions, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, those facilities are all too easily withdrawn, creating great difficulties for the small company.
After a few years of development of a small company, the loan guarantee scheme is available. Although it was popular in boom times, it encourages banks to investigate proposals less rigorously due to the limited risk. It leads also to excessive gearing, even as high as 10:1. That presents no problem in boom times, but when turnover falls in a recession it often contributes to the failure of the company. Nevertheless, it is highly desirable to stimulate equity investment by banks. I should like to see them make more easily

1333
available equity investment as well as short-term loans through overdrafts, as they do mainly at present. In most cases, equity investment in small companies is the best way to support risk and growth in the early stages. Moreover, it provides a sound base for loan capital when the company is established and expanding.
In effect, equity investment is a loan upon which no interest is required until the company is successful and making profits. But there is a need to face up to some obstacles in providing equity investment. The first I have already mentioned. It is the initial expenses problem. So I hope that the Government will look carefully at making grants to venture capital companies for initial expenses for small company equity investments. There would be no difficulty in such a scheme for providing for repayment of those grants when the company is successful and profitable, and perhaps when it seeks a quotation on the Stock Exchange.
As has already been said, the new EIS is helpful, as is the business angels concept. I am delighted to see that the EIS will permit directors and managers to make investments through it in their own companies. That was a great defect with the previous BES. I also look forward with great interest to the details of the proposals for the Venture Capital Trust, which the Chancellor mentioned.
But another problem remains on the demand side for equity capital. Many entrepreneurs are most reluctant to sell equity, even of a small share, because of the loss of full control. Even though that is understandable, it is unwise, because it is better to have 75 per cent. in a going concern than 100 per cent. in a company which is bankrupt when times get hard.
A possible contribution to solving that problem is to facilitate the issue of non-voting shares for external investors. Those shares could have voting rights restored in certain conditions; for instance, on under-performance by the company, or proposed takeover, or quotation for its shares. Until then the founders of the company would have full control of their company and perhaps be less reluctant to sell an equity stake. I recognise that different classes of equity shares are not popular in public limited companies which are quoted on the Stock Exchange. But it seems to me that there is little disadvantage in having them in private unlisted companies if it will facilitate equity investment in them.
Those are some ideas which I believe will help small companies to obtain the investment which they so sorely need, in particular equity investment. There is no single solution to the important problem of financing the growth of small companies. But let us admit that there is a problem and it needs to be tackled with determination, an open mind and a minimum of bureaucracy. I hope that in reply my noble friend will reassure us that something on those lines will be done.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for having asked this Question. I have seen both sides of this matter; I have been a small businessman and I have been involved in
1334
providing finance to small businesses. I do not want to say too much about what brings people to create businesses and what makes them work all the hours that God has given in order to pay all their money to the VAT man. I want to say briefly that what matters is the environment that the Government create; how well the economy is doing (that seems to be picking up now); how light a burden of regulation we can get away with (the Government are tackling that not least through the raising of the VAT threshold in the Budget); how the entrepreneur is valued in society (that has been one of the great changes during the past 14 years); and the regulation of the balance of power between small and large businesses.
In that context, I mention particularly the burden of commercial leases and the way in which they are structured at the moment. I hope that the Government will find time to tackle that. I also wish to mention the payment of debt. I remember one particularly poignant experience when I went into the office of the managing director of a company that I was considering investing in. I was shown two letters. One was his letter to a large company about a debt of £500,000, which was six months overdue, begging to be paid. The other was a solicitor's letter from that same large company threatening action over a debt of £500, which was two weeks late.
I want to confine my main remarks to the help that the Government can provide in financing and advising small businesses. First, I want to say what I believe they cannot do—that is, to help to get money out of institutions and banks. As my noble friend Lord Caldecote said, there is a problem with institutions. Their cost structures do not allow them to invest less than £500,000. I do not think that there is any way in which any government will ever change that. The only exception to that rule is 3i because of its own particular size and structure.
The only thing that the Government could do, which would have many other advantages, would be to alter the tax system in some way so that those great investing institutions which benefit so much from the tax system would be constrained to have a view for the long term rather than the short term, if they are to receive those tax incentives. As regards the banks, I do not think that we should expect them to invest much in small businesses, either. They are businesses which take their depositors' money and their depositors expect them to invest it safely. Small businesses are inherently high risk because they are dependent on one or two people.
There are two sets of circumstances in which banks can invest in small businesses. The first is when they have some risk capital of their own and have shareholders' funds set aside to do that. That is not the situation in the UK at the moment. I do not see any way in which the institutions are going to provide a lot of money to banks to invest in small businesses. The other follows the pattern in the United States where banks are local, where they are drawing their deposits from people who have an interest in the businesses in their community thriving and where they are prepared for the banks to take extra risks for the sake of the community.

1335
We have abandoned that position in the UK. There is no sign of our current structures allowing local banks to develop.
So let me now concentrate on what I believe the Government can do. It can help with training, help with the tax system and support the voluntary sector. Much training is needed by those who run small businesses. No one who is starting up in business comes to it perfectly equipped with all the skills that are required. They have no back-up within their own organisations and no one to whom they can turn for advice. They need to be able to go somewhere to learn how to market better and how to handle their personnel problems better.
What I hope the Government will do—and I know they are doing a great deal already—is to use the further education sector more. Following the Education Act 1992, that sector is transforming itself into an entrepreneurial and an effective provider of industrial training. In a recent survey carried out in my locality, 68 per cent. of individual entrepreneurs said that they would turn to their further education college for training, and only 5 per cent. said that they would turn to any offshoot of the TEC.
Secondly, as regards taxation, I am delighted that the Government have not been put off by the failure of the business expansion scheme which, to look back on it, was open to abuse and distorted too much the process of investing in real businesses. I hope that the Government will learn from that failure and concentrate on keeping the substitute small and on keeping the focus on amounts of less than £250,000, where the shortage is. They must keep it simple, make easy the tax process and other processes which must be gone through, and keep it commercial.
There are reasons why 3i adopted its investment structure and why it uses a mixture of loans, convertible preference shares and a little equity. It is because most small businesses are neither successes nor failures. Most small businesses trundle on happily for years, looking after their proprietors and one or two others. Investors need a way of getting money back out of those companies. That is what the loans and convertible preference shares are for. If you disallow tax relief on those forms of investment, you make most investments failures; and that is one of the main problems with the business expansion scheme.
I turn to the voluntary sector. The Transport and General Workers Union, in what I am glad to learn we are now allowed to call Pembrokeshire, has inspired a cashless lottery. That lottery operates not by selling tickets to the public but by persuading them to subscribe by way of a banker's order or through their pay roll. It is attracting thousands of local supporters who are happy that their money should be used to support local businesses. A team of local people who know the area and the people in it will decide which businesses should be lent money from the resulting fund. What is happening there is a renaissance of the local lender; the role that the banks have abandoned. I hope that the Government will watch this initiative very carefully and, if it proves successful, encourage its replication.
1336
My Lords, I turn from Wales to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, which he founded and which he leads. Last year the Prince's Youth Business Trust gave advice to 25,000 people on how to set up their own business. It has funded 15,000 new businesses, mostly ones which no one else would fund, founded by young, inexperienced or jobless people. Of those businesses, 65 per cent. survived three years or more. That is an astonishing figure. If those businesses had been founded by people with experience, 25 per cent. surviving three years would have been good.
The reason why the Prince's Youth Business Trust does so well is that it has not only a staff of 240, many of whom are seconded from industry, but a network of 6,000 successful business people who assist in setting up the business, who continue giving active advice in the following years; and this support, which no other institution can provide in the same quantity, and which many are not equipped to provide, makes all the difference to the success of those businesses.
The greatest beneficiary of the Prince's Youth Business Trust is the employment department. When His Royal Highness was raising the funds for it in celebration of his 40th birthday, the employment department agreed to provide a £1 revolving loan for every £1 that was raised from the public. Through that, the employment department has saved a great deal in unemployment benefit because the Prince's Youth Business Trust concentrates on people who are on the dole.
The employment department would have benefited substantially even if none of the loans had been repaid; but many of them have, and the employment department has benefited twice over. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that the Government recognise the extraordinary qualities of this trust, the way in which every £1 that the Government give to it saves the Government a great deal more, and will confirm that they intend to continue to give the trust all that it can use.
The same of course will apply to the local enterprise agencies, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. What makes the difference is the help of local businessmen, the involvement in their giving advice, and I feel that the most effective way that the Government can help small businesses is to encourage and fund these local agencies which can draw on resources that are not otherwise available.
I realise that in the course of this speech I have asked my noble friend to get help from five government departments—the DTI; the Departments of Employment and the Environment; the Department for Education and the Treasury. That is a tall order for a small business Minister but one that I am sure he will be able to fulfil.
7.53 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I too welcome this debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for introducing it. I regret to say that I shall be repeating a great deal of what he said in his excellent speech, although I shall say it in a slightly different way.

1337
I pay tribute also to the extremely interesting and informative speech made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I found it fascinating, and I am sure that other noble Lords did too.
First, perhaps I may say how welcome is the Government's refreshing approach to small businesses and how delighted I am about how far the Government have moved in the past year in addressing themselves to the problem of assisting small businesses. I should like to single out a number of points: first, the DTI one-stop shops; secondly, the local enterprise trusts, which are now better supported and in more diverse areas; the EIS, which is much welcomed; and venture capital trusts on which I, like many noble Lords, look forward to receiving further details in the new year.
At this stage, I should declare an interest. I am a director of a number of small businesses, in particular a company which is now, I am delighted to say, in receipt of a large amount of direct government support from the DTI. The company is involved in high technology, cutting edge technology, in a joint venture with the DRA at Malvern. Therefore, my experience of small businesses is limited but fairly pointed in the direction of technology companies.
I should like to give a summary of the importance of small business to the United Kingdom. The point has been made on a number of occasions this evening. There are over 2 million self-employed people in the UK, and there are more small businesses per capita here than in any other European country. The hope is that today's small businesses will be the big businesses of the future. It is critical to the wealth creation base of this country that we support existing small businesses and start-ups.
I wish to give a synopsis from my personal experience of the problems from which small businesses suffer. The first, mentioned by many noble Lords, is that they are unquoted. There is therefore no ready market in their shares. They are generally under-capitalised which causes cash flow problems. They are far too dependent on the lending institutions, in particular banks, for finance. That is because they have no real access to the financial markets of the City. The owners of small businesses in the main wish to hold on to 100 per cent. of the business rather than sell a percentage to other investors. To do so would improve the capital base of their companies but that is not usually the way they see it. Lastly—a matter not so far mentioned—they tend to have a limited knowledge of overseas markets. In essence that is because they are small businesses and their business activities are focused upon the UK.
Some problems are self induced but a number are not. I shall give reasons. As a number of noble Lords said, there is a reluctance by banks and institutions to place money in unquoted companies for expansion or start-ups, except in exceptional circumstances when an enormous amount of collateral cover is provided by the individual company concerned. There has been a limited source of venture capital in this country for start-ups, in particular of technology companies.
When venture capitalists get involved in start-up situations, they are very greedy. They expect, typically, an internal rate of return of between 35 and 70 per cent. I stress the figure of 70 per cent. because that is what
1338
they are looking for if investing in technology companies in this country. I believe firmly that if this country is to have a future, we must invest in technology companies. If the basis of making that investment decision is a 70 per cent. IRR, most people arid most companies would do better to board a plane to the west coast of America and speak to any number of venture capitalists in California who will not be looking for such a greedy return.
I should like to presume to make some suggestions for small businesses and the needs they may have. We need to convince owners of businesses in this country to give up some of their equity in order to build their balance sheets for the future. That is a cultural problem which does not exist in America. It is a problem the Government should spend some time trying to address.
We need to encourage banks to lend to start-ups: they are not prepared to do so at present. They are rebuilding their own balance sheets. Somehow we need to encourage them back into the market. Venture capitalists need to be attracted back into start-ups and particularly into technology companies. From my own experience, I can tell your Lordships that there are only four venture capital companies in the country that invest in high technology stocks. That is a tiny number. I can also say that the amount of money that they put in is less than £5 million a year which, I am afraid to say, is pathetic; there is no other word for it.
As I said, small businesses need much help in addressing overseas markets. I would love to see the Government become more involved. I know that they are doing so through the one-stop shops. However, my hope is that they will continue to do so and perhaps push their involvement further.
We need to provide investors with a clear exit route from small businesses in order to encourage them to invest in the first place. In the United States and in North America generally, there is a very clear exit. They can float their company on NASTAC, they cart go to Toronto or, alternatively, Vancouver. It is possible to raise three million dollars almost immediately; there is no problem. However, that cannot be done in this country because of our over-regulated stock market and the entrenched views of the City of London. Those concerned do not wish to give up their market-making position.
Perhaps I may give the House an example. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware of it, but the Vancouver market is a completely transparent market. It has been somewhat discredited by people, but it is still used. Noble Lords may be interested to know that some of the principal traders on that market are British institutions. Therefore, there is no reluctance on the part of British institutions to invest in small companies. However, they need to see an exit route where they can trade the shares. If we were to see something that was genuinely transparent, I believe that it would greatly improve the situation. I would welcome some positive thoughts on the matter from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I believe that the Government have done a great deal thus far. As many noble Lords have said, the EIS is of tremendous importance. I hope that it will he the success

1339
that we all wish to see. However, I suspect that it will not have enough up-front tax benefits for investors to overcome the cultural problem of investing genuinely in risk-reward situations. If it does not happen, I hope that the Government will keep close tabs on it and that they will, perhaps, be encouraged to change the up-front tax breaks if enough people are not attracted into the scheme. I should welcome more details on the venture capital trusts in due course.
I hope that DTI one-stop shops will concentrate on the investor-equity match against business opportunities and assist small businesses with overseas markets. I have a few further suggestions to make. I have mentioned the principal one; namely, the exit route. The third market and the USM did not work in the City. I like to think that other countries have got it right and have managed to create markets that genuinely work. I commend the North American model to the Government. I sincerely hope that that is something that they will seriously consider. If we can provide people with an exit route, I believe that we shall encourage more to invest in genuine start-up situations.
I suggest that one of the ways of encouraging banks and institutions back into the lending market is to provide them with some form of tax breaks. I know that that is anathema to the Treasury, but it may be a means of encouraging start-up situations. Perhaps my noble friend can give the suggestion some thought.
I hope that the Government will put increased effort behind the enterprise companies they have set up. There is certainly a culture in Scotland among some local enterprise companies that it is really a question of providing capital in order to create jobs. There is the concept that the more jobs one creates per pound put in constitutes the best form of investment criteria. I believe that that is changing. I am not sure, however, that it is changing fast enough. I hope that the pace will be forced.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat that I believe the Government have done a great deal so far. However, let us not lose the momentum now. Let us try to continue to improve the climate for young businesses to enable them to survive and flourish in the future.
8.5 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for giving me the opportunity to speak in a debate on small businesses. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Ezra who would normally be dealing with the matter but who is not available today. I have had quite a lot of experience in small businesses, though possibly not as much as my noble friend.
As one so often does in your Lordships' House, I have found this rather late and short debate absolutely fascinating; indeed, I have not been bored for one moment. It has been an invigorating debate and, if I may say so, some of the contributions made by younger noble Lords have been particularly expert and especially interesting. I believe that that says a great deal for your Lordships' House. I hope that people outside will take note of it.
1340
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, our great industrial history started with small businesses which, in many cases, became large ones and ultimately the backbone of our great industrial empire and part of our culture. I believe that it is correct to observe that many of the qualities and attributes of inventiveness and flexibility which formed part of that great industrial expansion, together with the strong entrepreneurial spirit, have probably been more conspicuously successful in small businesses than is the case in large businesses. That was often because when they became too large they became submerged—sometimes by inertia, lack of foresight, and the stubborn refusal to face change. All of that could and did lead to labour problems and the failure to attract investment which led quickly to grave problems of uncompetitiveness, especially in world markets. A good and conspicuous example of that—and it will probably be thought that I am saying this just to make a particular point—was the great motorcycle industry in which noble Lords know I take a lively interest.
Today there is still the inventiveness and entrepreneurial spirit and many small businesses are formed in a highly technological age by bright, young and resourceful people. However, unhappily—as has been mentioned—too high a proportion of those businesses fail and good ideas are wasted. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out, that is sometimes due to poor preparation and planning and poor management skills, even though there is a correctly identified need for the goods or services which are to be produced. Too often the failure is due to an environment which puts too great a burden on inexperienced businessmen entering into such ventures. It is here that the Government obviously have a most important part to play by creating the right environment and removing unnecessary burdens on new businesses.
There are two main issues that I should like to cover to which reference has already been made. However, I hope that I can produce one or two points that are new to the debate. First, there is obviously the question of finance; and, secondly, as has already been mentioned, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, there is the enforcement or the encouragement to pay outstanding bills.
So far as concerns finance, it seems to me from my experience that young entrepreneurs who go into business are often, if I may say so, because of the nature of their energy and their entrepreneurial spirit, somewhat autocratic and stubborn in some areas. An example of what I mean was given by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who quite rightly said that one often comes across such a situation. People stick stubbornly to their 100 per cent. or their 90 per cent. of their shareholding and are reluctant to part with any of it. It is hard to persuade them to see that it is better to have 51 per cent. of a very good business than 90 per cent. of something which will probably fail. That is a most important point.
I now come to what I regard as the most important issue. At the moment I am visiting a company that has just been set up and I know it will have problems as regards the point I am about to mention. When

1341
companies start out they have difficulties in obtaining finance. They are short of finance. Entrepreneurs are often not businessmen. They are frequently what one might call boffins. Some boffins have commercial expertise but others, conspicuously, do not. They seem to be concerned more with the positive net worth of the company rather than its cash flow. I suggest that many small business failures are connected with improper control of the cash flow which, put in its simplest terms, is a matter of watching carefully what comes in and what goes out. Companies need experienced professional advice in that situation, but that advice is expensive. I believe that many people who start businesses do not consider expenditure on such professional advice to be a high priority. They feel that they can regulate these matters themselves or that they can get an unqualified person to regulate them. In my experience, businesses quickly run into trouble by doing that.
As has been said, many small businesses have borrowed finance from banks. Many speakers have said how difficult it is to attract investment into a company. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, said, the criteria for high technology by venture capitalists are strict and the terms are harsh. In the past, government finance schemes have, in my view, been too oriented towards tax incentives. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will comment on that point when he replies to the debate. It would be a great help if the Government provided companies that meet the necessary criteria with loans that are repayable over a number of years. I believe that that could be a possible solution in certain situations. A company having that additional money would gain additional flexibility. The company could then see its way clear to spending some money on obtaining proper professional advice to control its expenditure; for example, on research and development. That is often one of the main reasons for running out of cash.
A point that I believe has not been mentioned tonight is that when companies using new technologies start up they often have a key man who is involved with the new technology. I do not wish to be pessimistic about these matters, but we all have to take care of our personal affairs as regards making a will and other such matters. Where companies have such a key man, it is essential they take out "key man insurance". Many companies say they cannot afford such insurance. However, if that company's key man is knocked over by a bus on his way to work the company may well be finished as there is no one to replace him and develop the product that has been planned. That is another expenditure which companies that are starting up often cannot afford. I hope the Minister will mention a different approach as regards government support for new businesses.
I now turn to the matter of outstanding bills. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said on this issue. It would be much better to have a code of practice which could achieve the results that we all want as regards payment of outstanding bills. Some £50 billion of unpaid bills are outstanding to companies—not just small businesses—in this country. That has an enormously adverse effect on companies' cash flows. I am told by my noble friend Lord Ezra—I have no way
1342
of confirming this—that our companies are the worst payers in the European Community, or at least among the worst.
The Government themselves were guilty of late payment of contracts, but I believe matters have improved dramatically since they gave instructions to all their departments to pay promptly. However, the Government seem reluctant to introduce legislation on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may be right to say that statutory legislation may not be the, way to tackle this issue, but the payment of outstanding bills is a grave matter that needs to be corrected, I hope the Minister will comment on that aspect. Voluntary codes have been tried as regards this matter, but so far they have failed. Outstanding bills are an inhibiting factor for businesses and some businesses are pushed under because their bills have not been paid. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to what has been a fascinating debate.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I join all your Lordships who have contributed to this debate in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for tabling the Unstarred Question which has allowed us to hold this brief debate. I hope sincerely that the message does not go from this House that the brevity of the debate reflects our strength of interest in small businesses, because that is far from being the case. In my view this debate—until I rose to speak—has been of a high standard and it illustrates a deep concern for the well-being of small businesses throughout the country.
Before I move to the burden of my own remarks I wish to refer to two points. One was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in relation to the Transport and General Workers' Union scheme in Pembrokeshire. It has always stuck in my mind that one of the greatest successes in this country, Girobank—albeit it is no longer a small business but a large enterprise—was sold by the Government for an enormous profit. That enterprise was the brainchild of the trade union movement. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has a furrow on his brow. He is obviously not too well aware, of the history of Girobank, which was the brainchild of the Post and Telecommunications Union. This is another good example of the trade union movement inspiring industrial development. I do not make that point to be partisan but rather to seek to encourage the Government, through the noble Lord, Lord. Strathclyde. to accept that there is an expertise across the whole of British society which can contribute to the well-being of small business throughout this country. That expertise is not confined merely to one sector of British society.
The other point I wish to take up from the debate is that made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, in relation to the local enterprise companies in Scotland. They have not been the success that the Government had hoped, and indeed the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is to conduct an investigation into the activities of the local enterprise companies throughout Scotland. One or two of them have been heavily criticised by auditors appointed to investigate the way in which these local enterprise companies have been run. However, I shall

1343
rest my remarks on the local enterprise companies there because of the inquiry that is to take place by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
I turn now to the Labour Party's position on small businesses. On 3rd November this year the Labour Party published its discussion document in which a number of ideas were floated which sought to help the well-being of small businesses throughout the United Kingdom. On 10th November a conference was held which was opened by the Leader of the Labour Party, John Smith. I am pleased to say there was participation in that conference from the CBI, the Small Business Council, the Midland Bank, the Forum of Private Business, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses and from a number of other organisations which would not normally be identified with the Labour Party.
I make that point because I believe that it is important that we listen to what small businesses and those who advise them have to say rather than dictating to small businesses what we believe is good for them. One of the purposes of the Labour Party's discussion document, as I say openly and honestly, is to seek the views of small businesses and those who advise them so that we can formulate a policy for small businesses against the background of the widespread discussion in which the Labour Party is now involved.
The experience of Europe proves conclusively that any vibrant economy badly needs a vibrant small business sector. There was a time in this country not so long ago—and I confess my own guilt—when we all thought that big was beautiful. It is interesting to note that some large companies—ICI is a good example—are now breaking themselves up into much smaller units. That leads me to the conclusion that in any vibrant economy the small business sector is vital.
It is an astonishing fact that 97 per cent. of the companies in this country employ fewer than 20 people. I do not believe that that fact has been grasped either by the business sector or the community at large. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, companies employing fewer than 100 people are responsible for 20 per cent. of the turnover in this country. That illustrates the importance of the small business sector.
I am not partisan to the extent that I do not recognise that in their recent Budget the Government have given some help to the small business sector. However, at the end of my remarks I want to leave the Minister with a question about one of the promises that was made in the Budget which the Federation of Small Businesses now claims was misleading.
Mention has been made of the question of late payment. The noble Viscount mentioned the Government's position. I recognise that the Government have instructed their departments to pay within 30 days. I believe that that ought to be extended and that the Government ought to impose an obligation on all public bodies to pay accounts within the same 30-day period that they have now imposed on their own departments.
There is a case for saying that part of the qualification for the British Standard certificate BS 5750 should be a requirement that accounts are paid on time, within 30
1344
days or certainly within a reasonable period. BS 5750 has nothing to do with the quality of the product which a company produces. It has everything to do with the quality of the management of that company. Surely a test of the quality of the management of a company is how promptly it pays its accounts.
There may well be a case for introducing a system whereby companies indicate in their annual report and accounts their policy in relation to the payment of accounts. As the noble Viscount said, the question of late payment is a very serious matter. I accept that the Government realise that it is a serious matter and are trying to do something about it. My comments are designed to leave with the Government some ideas as to how the whole question of late payment ought to be tackled. It is a very serious matter indeed.
I turn now to the financing of small businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said from his extensive experience, there is a major problem. I do not join in the chorus of condemnation of the banks either. The banks naturally see small businesses which are starting up as a risk and they do not involve themselves greatly in risks. The competitive nature of banking in this country at present puts small businesses at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to attracting finance. What small businesses need is not short-term finance which can be withdrawn almost at a day's notice but long-term security so that they can plan their development for some years ahead. The problem for small businesses in this country has been that they have been unable to plan ahead for any decent length of time. That is one of the main reasons why Great Britain has a poor record in growing small businesses into medium-sized businesses; it is the uncertainty of the availability of finance.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been advised by the researchers employed by Central Office that the Labour Party document floats the idea of a private-sector managed investment fund in order to provide the finance which small businesses need to be able to plan on a long-term basis. That is one other aspect which we should consider.
I suggest to the Minister that the DTI should make a study of our experience in the recession. I join those who hope that we are coming out of the recession. All my political life I have said that I would far rather contest a general election in conditions of full employment and a vibrant economy so that we can discuss other issues—moral and social issues and all the other issues which affect people's daily lives—rather than go on the hustings and discuss high unemployment and the resulting tragedies which we have seen over the past 14 or 15 years.
One of the experiences of the recession has been the almost indecent haste to push small businesses into bankruptcy at short notice. We ought to look at our insolvency laws to see whether something can be done to protect small businesses, particularly in periods of recession. As a constituency Member of Parliament for 22 years, my experience of small business has been in trying to protect people whose homes have been sold because their businesses have been put into bankruptcy. I do not suggest that we should create a situation in

1345
which people with small businesses can divert all their resources into houses that become palaces in order to protect their businesses. However, there ought to be some level of protection for the home of someone who has taken a risk in order to provide employment. Therefore we should examine our insolvency laws.
We ought also to look at the possibility of a moratorium law in this country under which a small business could apply to the court to delay debt collection in order to allow the possibility of that small business being restructured. The court itself would decide the period that would be allowed for the company to be restructured.
The final point that I want to leave with the Minister is that raised by the Federation of Small Businesses, which claims that the Budget was misleading on the question of the statutory sick pay scheme. The Government indicated in the Budget that the total burden for statutory sick pay will be transferred to companies. When that scheme started in 1980, the Government bore 100 per cent. of the cost. In 1990 that proportion was reduced to 90 per cent. Now the whole burden is to be transferred to the employer.
Small businesses are claiming that even the 1 per cent. reduction in the employers' national health insurance contribution will not be sufficient to compensate them for the cost of meeting the sickness pay arrangements that have been in place and continue to be in place. They make the point in particular in this year when there has been a flu epidemic. Small businesses employing fewer than 20 people have been hard hit. Bill Anderson, the Scottish secretary of the small business federation, has been particularly critical of the Government for misleading the small business people on the promise that was made in the Budget.
I conclude as I began, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and to reply to the Question put down by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. It is a welcome opportunity to discuss the subject of small firms; their success; their financing requirements, and so on. At the same time, I should like to welcome all those who have spoken. I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and others in saying that it has been an extremely high quality debate. The brevity of the debate will not lead anyone to believe that no one has a great deal of interest in the subject.
I welcome, too, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford. It is the first time that he and I have parried across the Dispatch Box, and I enjoyed his professionalism in making his speech. It was, of course, that very professionalism which allowed him to keep a straight face throughout the course of his discussion. The Labour Party discovered small firms on 3rd November of this year. For years they have decried
1346
the existence of small firms, falling at the feet of the trade union barons who payroll the Labour Party. But I shall come back to that subject in a moment.
Small firms are the seedcorn for future large companies. They are the companies which provide the enterprise and the innovation for our economy. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and my noble friend Lord Caldecote are absolutely right in saying that they will provide the growth in terms of employment and financial growth for the future. But it is not just Government who help small firms to grow. It is also the private sector. I salute the work of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in his former constituency in Croydon in setting up the Croydon business ventures, and my noble friend Lord Lucas who mentioned the excellent work carried out by the Prince's Youth Business Trust which has given so much hope to so many small businesses up and down the country.
The Government's main concerns are to create the essential conditions in which business can develop and flourish through sound finance, low inflation, low interest rates, free trade, minimised burdens on business and a flexible labour market. If the Labour Party is so serious in supporting policies for small firms, I hope that it, too, will subscribe to those policies.
To help achieve our aims, we have a range of specific measures which are relevant to the creation and development of small businesses. The first is Business Links—formerly called one-stop shops, to which many noble Lords have referred—with the provision of quality services delivered locally for businesses to provide them with the information they need, based in one location, providing expert help. The first of those Business Links has opened over the past few weeks. We hope to have some 40 Business Links in operation by the middle of next year, and 200 within two years. The partnership organisations bring together the training and enterprise councils, the chambers of commerce and the local enterprise agencies. They are designed to help riot just with existing companies but also with start-ups. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Dundonald, that it is my wish that they should play an important part in developing overseas markets and providing the information that so many small firms need in order to take that step to export.
We also have other initiatives. There is our continuing support for training and enterprise councils, the DTI's enterprise initiative, the business start-up scheme, and the loan guarantee scheme which has been providing finance to small firms since 1981 and was substantially improved in July of this year. I welcome the words of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on that subject.
I am sure that the House will agree that the recent Budget was excellent for smaller businesses, containing many positive measures to encourage their growth and help them to achieve their potential. I was particularly pleased by the measures to address the financing needs of smaller businesses. I refer to the new enterprise investment scheme which will, at last, include investors who are also directors and managers. The details of those schemes and the venture capital trusts are still being drawn up. I look forward to seeing the closer

1347
detail shortly. There is, too, the extension of capital gains tax rollover relief. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford. If the Labour Party is serious in its encouragement to small firms, it will have to reform in a wholesale manner its treatment towards capital taxes, inheritance tax and gains tax.
All those measures will help to provide the smaller amounts of equity that can currently be difficult to secure. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested that rather than financing companies through the tax relief on those schemes that I have mentioned, it should be through grants. As he will know, there is some direct help but it is minimal. Generally, tax incentives are better. I cannot support the view that civil servants should decide who receives grants from the taxpayer.
I am also particularly pleased with the deregulatory measures which were announced in the Budget. I refer to the relaxation of audit requirements for small companies, the agreement to look at the administrative complexities of PAYE and national insurance, and the raising of the VAT and corporation tax thresholds. A subject which has raised a great deal of comment this evening is the publication of the DTI's consultation paper on late payment. That paper seeks views on the legislative option of a statutory right to interest but also includes many other possibilities. One factor is clear: that the statutory right to interest is in itself no panacea. It is an extremely complicated issue, which is why we have brought forward that consultation document. The Government have never ruled out the possibility of legislation; but we have been concerned that there is a downside which may be damaging for small businesses. It is therefore right that at this stage we keep an open mind. I am sure that the consultation process will enable us to make a more informed decision on the next steps. If it has not been done, I shall ensure that a copy of that consultation document is placed in the Library.
I cannot confirm to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne what has happened to the Ministry of Defence's code of practice. I am sure that it is still in existence. However, I can tell the House this evening that I, as small firms Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, have an outstanding commitment to all small firms which have not been paid either by Government, government bodies, or the top 100 stock exchange companies. Those small firms can write to me; and I shall write direct to the chairmen. I can tell noble Lords that that normally has the desired effect.
Despite the measures already in place and those announced in the Budget, the Government are not complacent about the provision of finance for industry in general and small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. Access to adequate finance is vital to all businesses, and at a time when the economy is recovering it is vital that the employment-creating and producing base is not denied the resources it needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, was absolutely right when he said that the interest rate reduction was most welcome. The reduction over the past 18 months has done a great deal to improve the competitiveness of British industry. He and other noble Lords were also right when they said that British business relied too
1348
much on short-term overdraft finance. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Anthony Nelson, to examine the contribution which the City and financial institutions make to facilitating the growth of commerce and industry in this country. His review is assessing all the current sources of funding for industry with the aim of identifying whether there are any market imperfections which may distort the flows of finance and, if there are, to consider how the present arrangements can be improved. His review is particularly to look at those lower levels below £½ million, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Caldecote.
As part of the review, Mr. Nelson and Treasury officials have embarked on an extensive programme of visits and meetings. He is talking not only to banks and other financial initiatives but also to business, both large and small. The initiative will help to inform the consideration of public policies that bear on the provision of finance for industry. Already a number of broad themes are emerging. Short-termism is a perennial concern, and one question will be to ask whether there are institutional barriers to investment. Another common theme is the relationship between banks and businesses. Although often repeated, it remains true that the relationship between smaller firms and their banks is crucial to the provision of finance.
However, there still remain a number of concerns in this area. In order to tackle those, the banks are taking steps to improve the training of their managers and to understand better the needs and the perspective of industry. While on the subject of training, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that the Government are working closely with industry to raise awareness of best management practice: for example, the Management Charter Initiative, Managing in the 90s and the Enterprise Initiative Scheme, which covers management and production, business planning and financial information assistance.
However, we should always remember that the problems are not always one-sided and small businesses in turn need to accept that banks are businesses too. The banks are also taking action to deal with the criticism that they too often lend on the basis of security offered rather than of the business proposition and that they are too risk-averse. For example, they have introduced better risk assessment techniques. Also, the Government will continue to seek to encourage more diverse financing for small firms, in particular to encourage less reliance on debt finance, especially overdrafts. Much greater use could be made of equity finance, both through institutions and informally through individuals. I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Dundonald that many owners of small firms do not wish to sell equity. There is a cultural problem, and it is one that we shall have to tackle.
Perhaps I may finish by mentioning the TGWU initiative. If it is the sign of things to come from the trade union movement, surely it must be welcome. I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing it to our attention. It is an initiative at which the Welsh Office is looking closely, with a great deal of interest, and I hope it will be a great success.

1349
In the light of those remarks, I hope that noble Lords will acknowledge the positive steps which the Government are taking to encourage the right climate in which small businesses—both start-ups and established firms—can develop and flourish and the continuing steps we are taking to ensure that businesses are able to secure the finance that they need.
1350
I conclude by again thanking my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for initiating this debate and putting down the Question. I hope it is an area to which we may return soon.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

  HOSPITAL WAITING LISTS
  HOSPITAL WAITING LISTS
  MR. JOHN GIBSON
  MR. JOHN GIBSON
  FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT (SECTION 47): ENFORCEMENT
  FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT (SECTION 47): ENFORCEMENT
  CRIMINAL TRIALS: PLEA BARGAINING
  CRIMINAL TRIALS: PLEA BARGAINING
  JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS COUNCIL (DECISIONS)
  JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS COUNCIL (DECISIONS)
  NUCLEAR WASTE: PACKAGING AND DISPOSAL
  NUCLEAR WASTE: PACKAGING AND DISPOSAL
  THORP
  THORP
  THORP: US CORRESPONDENCE
  THORP: US CORRESPONDENCE
  THORP: US RESOLUTION
  THORP: US RESOLUTION
  IRRADIATED NUCLEAR FUEL: RETURN OF WASTE
  IRRADIATED NUCLEAR FUEL: RETURN OF WASTE
  NUCLEAR POWER: REVIEW
  NUCLEAR POWER: REVIEW
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
  FAMILY CREDIT TAKE-UP
  FAMILY CREDIT TAKE-UP
  INCAPACITY BENEFIT: MEDICAL ASSESSMENT
  INCAPACITY BENEFIT: MEDICAL ASSESSMENT
  SERPENTINE GALLERY, KENSINGTON GARDENS
  SERPENTINE GALLERY, KENSINGTON GARDENS
  UK POPULATION: REPORT
  UK POPULATION: REPORT
  CDC: GUATEMALA
  CDC: GUATEMALA
  SOUTH KOREAN FORCES: COMMAND
  SOUTH KOREAN FORCES: COMMAND
  FISHERMEN: DAYS AT SEA CONTROLS
  FISHERMEN: DAYS AT SEA CONTROLS