Sitting of 4 February 1993

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Monday 8 February at Seven o'clock.

  ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL
  Orders for Second Reading read
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 February 1993.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Committee on the London Underground (Green Park) Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works, and any sites which have been proposed as alternatives, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  CONTINGENCIES FUND 1991–92
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before this House Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1991–92 showing the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 1992 and the distribution of the capital of the fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Wood.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further measures he proposes to improve the balance of trade.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Government can best assist traders by keeping inflation and interest rates low. Inflation is close to its lowest level for a generation and below the European Community average. Interest rates are the lowest for 15 years and the lowest in the European Community. The extra support for the Export Credits Guarantee Department announced in the autumn statement will benefit many exporters.
    Mr. Jones: The problem is growing, and growing seriously. Is it not the case that a Government who lack credibility and any strategy have no chance of surmounting the major problem that they face in that respect? Is it not the case also that the nation needs investment in skills and manufacturing? As long as we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is isolated and a Prime Minister who is indecisive, the nation cannot see that problem ever being solved.
    Mr. Portillo: The country is receiving investment precisely because those investing from abroad have great confidence in this country and in its future. The hon. Gentleman, in particular, ought to know that, because, in his own constituency, the Toyota company is investing £140 million in a car engine plant at Shotton, which will employ 300 people and produce 200,000 engines a year. That is the sort of investment that is attracted to this country, and that is why this side of the House is optimistic. I do not know why the Opposition run this country down.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of this year's balance of payments deficit is likely to be accounted for by Government expenditure on payments to the European Community, foreign affairs, and overseas aid? If Labour Members want a swift reduction in that deficit, should not they join those of us on this side of the House who are asking for cuts in that expenditure? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those European countries that will not send their troops to Bosnia should finance part of the cost, which is £100 million a year?
    Mr. Portillo: It is extremely important to maintain tight control on public spending at European Community level as well as at national level. Britain always presses for that, and we are fortunate to have the support of my hon. Friend. It is important also that in the peacekeeping operations mounted across the world, there should be equality of contribution by all the countries with an interest in them. My hon. Friend is also right to make it clear that Government control over public spending can be important in making sure that we keep our balance of payments in a controllable state. Right hon. and hon.

    459
    Members across the Floor of the House are always advocating higher spending and higher borrowing, and that makes the task more difficult.
    Mr. Darling: Does not the fact that the trade gap is worsening at the height of a recession, even following September's devaluation, reveal the poor state of our manufacturing base? Does not the Chief Secretary accept that, unless the Government adopt a policy to increase investment in research and development and to build up our manufacturing base, the economy will continue to be weak, the pound will continue to be under pressure and there will be no hope of the economy's recovering in the way that it should?
    Mr. Portillo: I get very tired of hearing the Opposition bad-mouthing our country, belittling the achievements of our industry, sapping confidence in the country and discouraging foreign investors. As the hon. Gentleman ought to know, our manufacturing productivity grew the fastest among the G7 countries during the 1980s; it was at record levels in the three months up to November last year; and it is now growing at the fastest rate for five years. It is for those reasons that we feel confident in the country, and we only wish that we could hear some expressions of confidence from the Opposition.
    Mr. Budgen: Is not a fall in the external value of the pound the market's way of dealing with the deficit in the balance of trade? Is it not important for the Government to point out that a depreciation in the value of the pound affects some but not all prices, and does not cause inflation, which can be caused only by an increase in the money supply?
    Mr. Portillo: I agree with two aspects of what my hon. Friend has said. First, Britain's competitiveness will undoubtedly be very high in the coming year: we expect it to increase by 16 per cent. on last year's figure. It is also true that there are strong disinflationary influences in the British economy. No one should jump to any conclusions about the effect of the exchange rate on the rate of inflation.

    House Prices
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on house prices.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): The latest estimate from the Halifax building society is that average house prices fell by 7·7 per cent. in the year to January 1993. However, recent signs of rising activity are consistent with the view that I expressed in my autumn statement that house prices could start to rise this year.
    Mr. Orme: Does the Chancellor recognise that housing is at the centre of some of our economic problems? Repossessions are proceeding apace; in no sense can they be said to be halting. What action will the Government take to help people in the housing market—not only those who face repossessions, but those who want to buy, as some of my constituents do?
    Mr. Lamont: I should have thought that the lowest mortgage rates for 25 years were quite a good beginning.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that housing has been at the centre of the country's economic problems, but
    460
    I hope that he is not advocating a return to house-price inflation and inflation generally. That is not what we want. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed the encouraging signs of increased activity in the housing market: the Nationwide house price index rose by some 1·2 per cent. last month. He will also have observed that the number of contracts completed, particulars delivered, in December was up by over 20 per cent.
    The right hon. Gentleman asks what the Government are doing about repossessions. The Government struck a deal with the building societies, which has had a significant effect. Repossessions were down in the second half of the year compared with the first—and, for those in arrears, the sharp, deep cuts in interest rates will be a significant help.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in interest rates and the cost of mortgages has proved a real benefit to home buyers, and has brought stability to the housing market? Has he read the report in last week's Derby Evening Telegraph in which Derbyshire business men predict an economic upturn? There is a real improvement in confidence, not just in the high street but in the housing market.
    Mr. Lamont: I have to tell my hon. Friend that although I read the Grimsby Evening Telegraph I do not read the Derby Evening Telegraph, but I certainly shall in the future. In confirmation of what my hon. Friend says, she is absolutely right about the effect of mortgage rates, a point I made in answer to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). It is indeed cheaper for first-time buyers to buy a house now than it has been for several years.
    The National House Building Council's index of ability to buy is at an all-time high, indicating that houses are extremely affordable. The housing market package that I announced in the autumn statement is well on course. I fully expect that some 17,000 houses will be taken off the market in England alone before the end of March. That is a direct result of the actions that the Government have taken to help the housing market. It is why confidence is rising in the housing market and also why, as my hon. Friend says, confidence is rising generally, not only in Derby but in the country as a whole.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will not the Chancellor's personal legacy when he goes be that more people have lost their homes, more people have homes that are worth less than they paid for them and more people are in mortgage arrears than at any point in our history? Does the Chancellor not understand that his answer to the cause of that, which is rising unemployment since he became Chancellor, has been to cut work and training places for the unemployed by 100,000? Is it the unemployed who have failed to work for the Government or is it the Government who have failed to create work for the unemployed?
    Mr. Lamont: I see that the hon. Gentleman has had to work hard to get his supplementary to that question. Usually he asks me outside the Chamber which question I am answering in order that he can put his supplementary to the appropriate question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is nothing more difficult than having to think of a supplementary on your feet, is there?
    The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the thing that will most help the housing market and the

    461
    employment market is the reduction in interest rates and the relaxation in monetary policy which we have made. That, combined with the measures that we have announced on the housing market, has reduced repossessions in the second half of the year compared with the first.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's credibility. I just note his credibility. I notice what his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said about the hon. Gentleman's budget for jobs. He said that it had sunk
    "without trace as virtually all of Labour's economic policies have sunk without trace in recent years".
    When asked why, the hon. Member for Dagenham said that no one believed that their policies could ever work. That is what hon. Gentlemen think about the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
    Sir John Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, having secured the lowest level of inflation for more than six years, he will not allow that excellent progress to be jeopardised in any way?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have made it consistently clear that the interest rate policy that the Government will follow is one of achieving low inflation combined with a sustained recovery. That is the objective of monetary policy. The reduction in interest rates that we made a week ago was consistent with low inflation, based on the advice that we had from the Bank of England and is consistent with sustained recovery. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind the House that inflation must be at the centre of our objectives. Having done so well to get inflation down, not only below the average of the European Community but below the average of the G7 group of countries, we cannot throw it away.

    Exchange Rate Mechanism
    Mr. Hoon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors the Government will take into consideration in deciding when to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. Lamont: I set out the conditions for rejoining the ERM in my letter of 8 October to the Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
    Mr. Hoon: Given that what now passes for Government economic policy involves the persistent devaluation of the pound, and given the chronic uncertainty that that causes for British business, when can we expect the British Government to go back to their previous policy of managing the exchange rate?
    Mr. Lamont: The Government have made it clear again and again that we do not seek a depreciation of the currency, but we have made it clear that interest rates will be set according to a range of factors. That includes domestic money conditions, asset prices—particularly house prices—and also the exchange rate. The exchange rate will continue to be among the factors that we take into account in assessing interest rates, and markets should remember that interest rates can go up as well as down.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Has my right hon. Friend noted that when, yesterday, Japan reduced its discount rate to 2½ per cent., the lowest base rate in the developed world, the Japanese yen strengthened against the European
    462
    currencies and against the United States dollar? Does not that demonstrate yet again that the quality of industry and the level of investment in research and development ultimately determines exchange rates, and not political manoeuvres by politicians, often with little commercial experience, as exemplified by the disastrous experiment with the exchange rate mechanism and the unrealistic economic and financial convergence criteria of the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Lamont: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting—I am sure that he is not—that the recent reduction in interest rates was other than fully justified and justified by economic criteria. I certainly believe that it was. It was based on the advice of the Bank of England; it was based on what is happening to money supply and to asset prices. I believe that the reduction in interest rates that we have had was very fully justified and a good decision.
    I agree with what my hon. Friend says about Japan, but the markets, in their reaction to Japan, also take into account the fact that they have a very low rate of inflation and they have a near to balanced budget as well. That is part of Japan's strength, and my hon. Friend should remember that as well.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the Chancellor agree that the activities of speculators inflict enormous damage on prospects for trade, for investment and for jobs? Should not he now tell the House what the true cost of Black Wednesday really was? What proposals will he bring forward to tackle the power of the speculators? While he is at that, will he answer one very simple and important question: does he believe in managed exchange rates or in floating exchange rates? Opposition Members have had enough of his casino economy.
    Mr. Lamont: As regards what the hon. Gentleman has said, I do not entirely agree with him about speculation in foreign exchange or other markets. Speculation is a fact of life. The truth is that Opposition Members have never adjusted to the fact that we live in a global economy. That is why they are so hostile to inward investment. They think that we can pursue policies on our own, regardless of the world outside.
    As regards the hon. Gentleman's question on exchange rate policy, I am astonished that he should put it to us. We are totally at a loss to know whether the Labour party wants or does not want to join the exchange rate mechanism again.
    Mr. Marlow: Given the recent devaluation of the Irish punt and yesterday's pressure on the Danish kroner, would it be a good thing or a bad thing for the United Kingdom if the exchange rate mechanism were to collapse altogether?
    Mr. Lamont: I do not believe that it would be in the interests of this country if the exchange rate mechanism collapsed, as my hon. Friend said. I have, however, made it clear to the House on many occasions that I do not think that, in present circumstances, we can contemplate rejoining the ERM as long as economic conditions in this country and in Germany are not in step. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me today in welcoming the reduction in German interest rates which has taken place. It is something which I think should have taken place somewhat earlier.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of payments.
    Ms. Walley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of payments.
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and other countries was in 1992.
    Mr. Portillo: The current account deficit in 1992 was £12 billion. Nevertheless, I find it encouraging that export volumes have been at record levels in recent months. Lower interest and exchange rates give a significant boost to our export prospects. It is vital that exporters keep down their wage costs.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a deficit of £12 billion in the depth of a recession is an appalling indictment of the Government's record? He used comparisons with other G7 countries in an earlier answer. Can he now tell the House what was Britain's visible trade balance with each of the other G7 countries in 1992? Was there a surplus in any of those cases?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman makes the point which was made earlier, that the balance of payments deficit is at the bottom of a British recession. I say to him that most of the world is in recession, and our exporters must compete in that recession. It is remarkable to see export volumes of our manufacturers at a record level in the three months to December 5 per cent. up on the previous three months. It is the case that not only Britain but the world is in recession and our exporters are performing magnificently in that situation.
    Ms. Walley: Why is it that we have not heard anything about the contribution that British shipping makes to the balance of payments? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the contribution of the shipping industry over the past three years has been £11 billion gross and £3 billion net? Does he agree that unless he makes some contribution to British shipping, the merchant fleet of this island nation will sink without trace and the balance of payments will be much worse as a result?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that the British shipping industry is extremely important, and the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to it. Naturally, we receive all sorts of representations in the run-up to the Budget and she would not expect me to comment on that.
    One source of new business for the British shipping industry will be the high level of British exports of motor cars in the coming years with investment by companies such as Nissan which will export two thirds of its United Kingdom-produced cars, which involves 90,000 cars per year. That is an opportunity for British shipping which I hope the industry will be able to seize.
    Ms. Quin: Is it not the case that the Government originally forecast a deficit last year of £6 billion, which was bad enough, but in reality it turned out to be twice that amount? Why did the Government get it so wrong?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that many experts were not able to predict the exact figures. I do not know why the hon.
    464
    Lady revels in the trade figures or what point she is trying to make. I am speaking up for those people who are making a good job of exporting for Britain, and the Labour party constantly runs down their efforts. I call that deplorable.
    Mr. Forman: In a world in which capital and investment flows are becoming every bit as important as trade flows, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an encouraging sign that we still have a strongly positive balance in our net overseas assets?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that. The prediction that we have for invisibles is that our invisible surplus should double in the coming year compared with last year.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the insurance and financial services industry in Great Britain is one of those industries that make a positive contribution to Britain's balance of trade? Does he agree that it is important for our insurance companies to take full advantage of the single market in insurance and, financial services and, therefore, that they need the same tax treatment as is enjoyed by companies on the continent?
    Mr. Portillo: First, I pay tribute to the performance of our financial sector industries. They play an important part in the British economy. They play an important part in creating for us an invisible surplus which means that the current balance is better than the visible balance. As I said a moment ago, we expect that invisible balance to improve in the coming year. I do not think that my hon. Friend will expect me to comment now on the tax treatment of financial industries.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to congratulate our exporters on their magnificent efforts on behalf of Britain and to urge industrialists and other exporters to take advantage of the benefits of low inflation and low interest rates to export even more for the benefit of Britain?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Over the recent period, car exports have risen by 23 per cent. We are now a net exporter of television sets. The pharmaceutical industry has pushed up its exports by 16 per cent. in the past year. All those industries are surely worthy of congratulation. That is why it is so depressing to hear the Opposition talk as though those acheivements had not occurred.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is not the truth of the matter that in the long term our balance of trade was in serious decline every year since the war until 1979 and that in recent years, for the first time, our share of world trade in exports of manufactures has stabilised and improved slightly? Are not structural reforms, expecially reforms of education which Labour has opposed, the best way to ensure a long-term improvement? Would not the worst policy be to go back to the bad old days of penal corporate tax, with union militancy, which hamstrung British industry and forced multinationals such as Ford and General Motors to fall over themselves to resite manufacturing away from Britain?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. For some decades, the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactures was in decline. During the 1980s that share

    465
    stabilised, and we predict that it will rise in the year ahead. My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the reasons for that is the improvements that were made in the efficiency of the British economy and, in particularly, the reforms on the trade union side. My hon. Friend will need no reminding that we have recently seen jobs move from Dijon to Scotland precisely because, as President Delors said, Britain is a paradise for foreign investment.

    Unemployment
    Ms. Short: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the causes of the increase in unemployment since 1979; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The level of unemployment since 1979 has been influenced by a number of factors, including the cyclical performance of the economy, the growth in the size of the labour market and the competitiveness of British industry. Government policy is to create the conditions for sustained growth in output and jobs, and to make the labour market work efficiently.
    Ms. Short: Is not the truth that in the 14 years during which the Government have been in power unemployment has risen from slightly more than 1 million to 4 million on the old method of counting and that that is a disastrous record for people who are unemployed? It is disastrous also because it leads to massive Government borrowing and it partly explains our balance of payments crisis. We need an apology, a U-turn and a Government who get unemployment down and investment up. Otherwise, the long-term future of our economy is deeply worrying.
    Mr. Nelson: The Government are, of course, concerned about the hardship and uncertainty which unemployment visits on individuals and families, but 1·3 million people more are employed now than 10 years ago. Unemployment has been rising in all the EC countries and all the G7 countries during the years in question. It remains a fact that a higher proportion of our adult population is employed than in any other EC country except Luxembourg and Denmark.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister's recent success in the middle east in selling Tornados to Saudi Arabia has resulted in 12,000 extra jobs in Lancashire and that Lancashire now has a lower unemployment rate than Hampshire, Kent, Essex or Hertfordshire?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. The very important deals concluded by my right hon. Friend both with the sultanate of Oman and with Saudi Arabia have major employment implications nationally and regionally and should be welcomed by the whole House.
    Mr. Beith: Has the Treasury made an examination of the likely costs of a workfare programme and, if so, have the results been communicated to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Nelson: I acknowledge that there is, rightly, growing public interest in the remarks of the Prime Minister last night. My right hon. Friend opened the debate and it is for Lord Wakeham, who is chairing a committee looking into various aspects of the matter, to produce some conclusions. It is important to remember
    466
    that my right hon. Friend was not referring to workfare. That has been added to his remarks subsequently—[Interruption.] Those who examine his words will see that my right hon. Friend talked about
    "offering or requiring some activity from unemployed people in return for benefit."
    That already happens to some extent, and there is no reason why we should not consider ways of building on that.
    Mr. John Marshall: Has the Minister made a survey of the impact of inward investment on the level of unemployment, and has he made a survey of what would happen to inward investment if we adopted the social chapter?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the important impact of inward investment on employment in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of congratulation for the policies of this country and the attractions of our regions that we have taken the lion's share of inward investment, certainly from Japan. My hon. Friend is right to point out that that has implications for employment and to draw attention to the fact that much of that would not have happened if we had imposed labour costs required by the social charter which have proved such a disadvantage to others and an attraction towards ourselves.
    Ms. Harman: Is the Minister now distancing himself from the Prime Minister and—we want to be clear about this—are the Government now in favour of workfare?
    Mr. Nelson: Obviously, as I said, the Government are conscious of the growing public interest in the matter and, in particular, the question raised by the Prime Minister about whether paying benefit to the unemployed without requiring any activity in return is helpful to the unemployed or to society as a whole, but no decisions have been taken and I cannot anticipate whether any new measures will be introduced.
    Mr. Streeter: Does the Minister agree that the best and perhaps the only way to create new jobs is to put in place the right conditions for economic growth, which are low inflation and low interest rates? Does he agree that those are precisely the conditions that the Government have now put in place?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is spot on. Nobody can deny that low inflation and low interest rates are a pre-condition for a return of confidence, but it is important also to contain wage settlements and labour costs, both of which have been falling sharply.

    Yorkshire and Humberside
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his policies on Yorkshire and Humberside.
    Mr. Nelson: I pay attention to a range of statistics and information—for example, the economic survey of the Association of Yorkshire and Humberside Chambers of Commerce, which showed an improvement in sales, exports and business confidence for the fourth quarter of 1992.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: My children aged seven and four have asked me to press the Government on their concern about the fact that the ice cream man no longer comes down our street—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Such interruptions are a tremendous waste of our valuable time.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: How do I explain to my children that the ice cream man has joined the 250,000 other unemployed people in Yorkshire and Humberside and that his company, which produced excellent ice cream for generations of my constituents, has gone bust and is yet another casualty of the Government's lunatic economic policies?
    Mr. Nelson: I am sorry to hear about the ice cream man. I must confess that that was one supplementary question that I did not anticipate, but perhaps I can say to the hon. Member, as someone who frequently visits his constituency and knows that area well, that perhaps his children will take more comfort from the fact that Wakefield has been chosen as the site for the British Rail channel tunnel freight centre. That will mean a £150 million scheme involving the employment of some 4,900 people. Is that not good news?
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that industry in West Yorkshire is among the most prosperous in the country and will he make sure that he and his colleagues do nothing either fiscally or regionally to disturb those deep-rooted businesses?
    Mr. Nelson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I would only add that since this Government came to office some £300 million of Government support has been made available to companies in the region to create and safeguard jobs. Added to the investment and enterprise in the area, that is a powerful combination which should give encouragement and confidence.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning rates of VAT.
    Ms. Estelle Morris: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning rates of VAT.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): Many representations have been received, and these will be considered in the run-up to the Budget.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister place on the record in the House what he has already put in writing—that the Government have no plans or proposals to extend VAT to cover newspapers and periodicals?
    Sir John Cope: We have repeatedly made ourselves clear, and I am not taking back anything that we have said, but at this point we cannot discuss any tax changes so near to the Budget.
    Ms. Morris: As the Conservatives claim to be the party of low taxation, will the Minister confirm to the House that the Government have already extended the scope of VAT on 14 separate occasions? Will he also take the opportunity to tell the House that he will honour the
    468
    pledge made by the Prime Minister last March that there would be no further increase in VAT and no further expansion of the scope of this tax?
    Sir John Cope: I am not sure how the hon. Lady works out her precise figures, but I will not add anything to what I have said.
    Sir Terence Higgins: As I had the task of steering the original VAT legislation through this House, may I urge my right hon. Friend not to restrict the scope of zero-rating for VAT for short-term revenue reasons, given that pressure from the European Community is likely to mean that any such change would be irreversible and would bring further pressure on the argument for abolishing zero-rating altogether?
    Sir John Cope: I acknowledge that that was another Budget representation from a particularly authoritative source.
    Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend will agree with me that it is important to recognise the importance of market forces where VAT differentials exist. In doing that, will he accept that thousands of jobs in my constituency and elsewhere depend on a satisfactory outcome to his own efforts to resolve the differential in VAT on bloodstock?
    Sir John Cope: Yes indeed. My hon. Friend and I have discussed this on a number of occasions including last night or, rather, early this morning. I have nothing further to add to what I said then.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: On Channel 4 news on 31 March 1992 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to tell viewers, "we will not have to increase taxes"; he could not see any circumstances in which that would be necessary. Is that true?
    Sir John Cope: It proved exactly true, did it not?

    Exports
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the trend in export volumes arising from the figures for recent months.
    Mr. Nelson: As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said earlier, export volumes are at record levels. Their trend is firmly upwards, and manufactured export volumes are forecast to rise a further 7¼ per cent. in 1993.
    Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that excellent reply and those encouraging figures. Does he agree that if we maintain low taxation, low interest rates and competitive exchange rates, we can expect more excellent figures?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are necessary pre-conditions for a continued good export performance. The figures are positive. They are record levels across the board and not just for manufactured exports.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are export volumes helped when a west Cumberland company such as Circuit Foils UK, with an outstanding export record for exporting two thirds of its production, is simply closed down and the whole manufacturing operation shifted to Luxembourg? Should not the Government intervene to protect

    469
    companies in this country that produce products of strategic importance to the nation's economy so as to ensure their survival within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Nelson: I understand the importance of both matters, although I believe that they are separate. Disregarding for the moment the question of strategic interest, the decisions of international companies must be a matter for their commercial judgment. I take it that the hon. Gentleman's question underlines the importance of inward investment here. While it is regrettable that we may lose some companies abroad occasionally, it is welcome indeed that we seem to be net gainers, as the decision by Hoover demonstrates.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Fox: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive response to what he said last night—that the Government will consider new ways to give extra help to unemployed people and to keep them in touch with the jobs market? Is not that open-minded approach in stark contrast with the closed minds but open mouths of Labour Members?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. My concern is to make sure, wherever possible, that we keep unemployed people in touch with the world of work. Both here and elsewhere, that is a vital issue and I believe that we need a public debate on it. It is right to look at all the radical options and we propose to do so. That may mean offering more opportunities, for example, of volunteering, or extending an element of compulsion, which we already have in Restart. I do not believe that we should shy away from considering those options, and we will not.
    Mr. John Smith: After a week of chaos over Government economic policy and yet more redundancies in British industry, does the Prime Minister understand that it is vital for British manufacturing industry that Leyland DAF should not be allowed to collapse, as there are 5,500 jobs at stake in the company and 10,000 among its suppliers? Will the Prime Minister undertake that if the Dutch and Belgian Governments rescue their parts of the company, the British Government will do at least the same for Leyland DAF?
    The Prime Minister: No. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the receivers appointed yesterday at Leyland DAF have made it clear that they believe that at least parts of the business can be saved as a commercially viable business without unnecessary state hand-outs. I believe that that is the way to proceed.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand the concern which exists in the country because of the Government's record of neglect of manufacturing industry, and the hesitancy and ambiguity of statements
    470
    made by the Government? Can the Prime Minister not give a clear undertaking that he will do for Britain what the Dutch and Belgian Governments will do for their countries?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking us to do what has been tried in the past by previous Labour Governments and others and has failed. He should recall the disastrous outcome of the Labour Government's merger of Leyland with the British Motor Corporation, involving millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money; later they had to nationalise it, which cost even more millions. Much of that money paid for wasteful working practices and unjustified wage increases insisted on by the unions. That was Labour's idea of industrial strategy and it is clear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it still is. He has learnt nothing.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand that that long answer will cause even greater concern to the people in Leyland DAF? Does he not understand that in the real world outside the Carlton club people see a Government lurching from one muddle to another, whether it be interest rates, defence cuts or workfare? Can he not set one simple objective and stick to it? Leyland DAF is a vital British interest and it ought to be secured.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade set out our position quite clearly the other day. Hon. Members must understand that we are not prepared to spend taxpayers' money to provide working capital for companies in difficulty. Many private companies need more working capital from time to time; it is simply not realistic to expect the Government to provide it. That approach was tried in the 1960s; it failed. It was tried in the 1970s; it failed. That is the economic reality which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should face up to.
    Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday's announcement about the size of the Army is particularly welcome as renewed proof that the Government are ready to respond to changing circumstances overseas? As the Opposition are committed to a 25 per cent. cut in the defence budget, will he use his influence with the Leader of the House to make sure that we have an early debate on the subject?
    The Prime Minister: The measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday are a small but necessary adjustment to a changing world situation. They will ensure that the Army has the flexibility and resilience necessary to meet challenges in the years ahead. Had the Opposition been in power and carried out their defence policies, they would have slashed £6 billion off defence. I wonder what they would have said then about the defence jobs that would have been lost.
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Galbraith: In view of the continuing uncertainty in the money markets, can the Prime Minister say whether his

    471
    Chancellor will be presenting not only the March Budget but the December Budget? May I have a straightforward answer? Will the current Chancellor be presenting the December Budget—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot imagine anyone other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer presenting a Budget.
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that criminals, even teenage criminals and other young offenders, are responsible for their own actions and deserve to be punished accordingly? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that it is Government policy to punish such young offenders and not to make excuses for them like the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no excuse for crime. Society is not to blame, and individuals are. For a small number of persistent juvenile offenders we need a new approach. We need new powers to put them into secure accommodation where they can be trained for a useful future. Unless they are trained at an early stage, we betray them, for we leave them in a position where they may believe that crime is justifiable and then wreck their lives as well as other people's.
    Mr. Ashdown rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a very important time, not only for the House, but for people outside who watch and attempt to listen to us. The House must come to order before we can make any further progress.
    Mr. Ashdown: In the light of the Prime Minister's previous answer and his speech last night, will he assure the House that he understands that any scheme designed to make the victims of his policies the inmates of a compulsory ghetto of low wage and no hope would be rightly condemned? But a policy and programme designed to give the long-term unemployed real training and real job experience—one like the community programme from which I and thousands of others benefited 10 years ago —would be well worth considering.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had read my speech before asking his question he might not have asked it in that form.
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend noticed reports in today's press that the National Union of Teachers is requiring its members to boycott the English test for 14-year-olds? Is not that disgraceful decision a grave disservice not only to parents and children but to the vast majority of decent and honourable teachers who serve the community?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that it is a disgraceful decision, and one which, in time, the NUT itself will regret. English is the single most important subject in the
    472
    curriculum, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to insist that grammar and standard school English should be taught in our schools. I condemn without reservation the action proposed by the NUT and I utterly deplore the politically motivated campaign being waged by some members of that union. They said yesterday:
    "A boycott of English tests presents militants with an opportunity to broaden the current struggle."
    Those militants are playing politics with children's futures, and the sooner the NUT denounces them the better it will be for everyone.
    Ms. Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Eagle: Is the Prime Minister aware that this week sees the 75th anniversary of the occasion of women's gaining the vote? Is it not an insult that his Government have decided to celebrate this great anniversary by abolishing wages councils, thereby adversely affecting the earnings of 2 million women?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly not. We believe in equality.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister what conclusions were reached at his seminar on deregulation held on 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: We agreed to review all 7,000 regulations currently imposed on businesses, with the aim of abolishing regulations wherever possible. Where they cannot be abolished—for overriding reasons of health or safety, for example—we shall work to simplify them. We agreed also that future proposals for new regulations must always spell out the costs to businesses of complying with them. We must not impose burdensome regulations on business unless they are absolutely necessary, and we are determined not to do so.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, which will be most welcome to businesses in my constituency and in all other parts of the country. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his junior Ministers have absolute freedom to seek out and destroy unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, in whichever Government Department or whichever institution it may reside?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is precisely the task that I have given to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. There is a problem with excessive regulation in Brussels, but there is also a problem in Whitehall. We need to deal with both.

    Engagements
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McGrady: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the patients charter that he had published and so ardently supported? The charter sees clinical effectiveness and accessibility as the twin pillars of a good acute hospital service. Is the Prime Minister aware that in many areas, and in particular my constituency of South Down, with an area of 750 square miles, all hospital services are being abolished? Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that action as contrary to the patients charter, and will he take a personal interest in seeing that those scandalous proposals are abandoned?
    The Prime Minister: I was certainly not aware of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to investigate and report back to me.
    Mr. Shersby: Further to my right hon. Friend's earlier reply about juvenile offenders, does he agree that the two single most important actions that the Government can take to deal with the problem are, first, to stop juvenile offenders reoffending on bail and introduce legislation to deal with that secondly, and to provide the resources for secure accommodation so that youngsters who persistently reoffend can be locked up?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the two points made by my hon. Friend. I assure him that we have both those matters in mind.

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to prevent Ministers from granting public interest immunity certificates in relation to export licences.
    The Prime Minister: The law on public interest immunity has been developed by the courts over time, and they are the ultimate judge of where the balance of the public interest lies. Public interest immunity is within the terms of reference of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry and we await his report.
    Mr. Dalyell: Should it not be the House of Commons now, rather than Lord Justice Scott in the ever-receding future, that asks for an explanation as to why—in order to protect five Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary—Alan Moses QC for the Crown in court, and the Attorney-General on 12 November, were very seriously economical?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Claiming public interest immunity is an obligation, not a privilege. In any case, the prosecution in the Matrix Churchill trial failed not because of the disclosure of documents but because of the change of evidence of a key witness. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the outcome of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Housing and Urban Development Bill.
WEDNESDAY IO FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock, completion of remaining stages of the Housing and Urban Development Bill.
Motions on the Social Security Benefit Uprating Order and other orders and regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The House will then be asked to agree spring supplementary estimates 1992–93.
THURSDAY II FEBRUARY—Motion on the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 6).
Motion on the Maximum Number of Judges Order.
Motion on the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 (Amendment) Order.
FRIDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords].
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 10 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
Standing Committee A—Document No. 8642/92, relating to the appointment of an officer for prevention of risks inherent in the carriage of dangerous goods.
Standing Committee B—Documents Nos. 9766192 and 10341192 relating to the restructuring of the Spanish steel industry.
The House will recall that, before Christmas, I announced the dates of the Easter recess. I hope that it will now be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the Spring Adjournment—the Whit recess in common parlance—on Friday 28 May until Monday 7 June.
Monday 8 February:
Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports: 1. Local Government Finance Report ( Wales) 1993–94 (HC 412);
2. Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts ( Relevant Notional Amounts) Report ( Wales) 1993–94 (HC 413).
Wednesday 10 February:
Social security uprating and other orders and regulations: 1. Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1992; 2. Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 1993; 3. Social Security (Contributions) ( Re-Rating) Order 1993; 4. Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment) Regulations 1993; 5. Statutory Sick Pay ( Rate of Payment) Order 1993.
European Standing Committee A: Relevant European Community document-8642/92, risk prevention officers; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee—HC 79-vii ( 1992–93 ).
European Standing Committee B: Relevant European Community documents-9766/92, 10341192, Spanish steel; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee—HC 79-ix (1992–93 )]
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and in particular for his courtesy in letting the House know the dates of the Whitsun recess, which will certainly be most helpful to people's planning.
Could I ask him to find time as soon as possible for a debate on legal aid, in view of the growing concern about the serious consequences of the Government's proposals and their implications for the access to justice of many citizens—something that should be everyone's right?
The House is owed time for a number of outstanding debates not only on the Government's public expenditure programme, but on the estimates for the Army and the Navy. There is particular concern about the employment implications of the Navy's present programme and, unless we are granted those debates, the employment implications of the Government's overall defence programme may simply trickle out piecemeal.
May we have an assurance that we will have a debate on the Home Secretary's plans for the police force before he does for police morale what he has already done for the morale of doctors and teachers?
Finally, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to find time for an Opposition day in the near future?
Mr. Newton: Most of those requests must be taken on board for consideration, including those about the police and legal aid, on which the Lord Chancellor will be bringing forward his proposals.
As for the economy and the hon. Lady's reference to public expenditure, there is not much that I can usefully add to what I told her last week. I can be a little more forthcoming on her reference to defence issues, and there may be others in the House who would have mentioned foreign affairs. It would be helpful to have a debate on defence and foreign affairs issues, and while I cannot give an absolute commitment about the timing, I shall be looking for an opportunity in the not too distant future. Finally, in line with the spirit with which the hon. Lady spoke, I thank her for her thanks for the early notice of the Whit recess.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will it be possible some time to have a debate on international trade protectionism in which it will be possible to emphasise the vital importance of President Clinton making quite clear the views of his new Administration on protectionism and isolationism?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is expecting to meet President Clinton later this month, and I have no doubt

477
that my right hon. Friend will wish to take account of that point. Much as I would like to please my hon. Friend, I cannot promise an early debate in exactly the terms that he has suggested, but I guess that a number of these issues might prove in order during the debate on the Budget, which is not too far away.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Having regard to some of the comments made in the other place yesterday by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, about the draconian nature of the proposed civil legal aid cuts, can I reinforce the request by the official Opposition for an early debate on civil legal aid? If rumours are to be believed, these measures are supposed to come into effect on 1 April, and it is necessary for people to make proper arrangements and plan for those changes. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we will have an early debate on the matter on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Newton: I will add a little to what I told the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has said that he will consider the proposals by the legal profession, which embrace some of the points made in another place, but he has not been persuaded that they will yield the required amounts. He will shortly be laying regulations to bring into effect the changes he has announced, and we shall then consider having a debate.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early and urgent debate on Angola? Three British citizens, including my constituent, Mr. Stephenson, have been caught up in fighting between the UNITA rebels and the Government forces along with nationals from other countries. There is a need for concerted international action to secure their release and bring an end to the fighting which has ravished Angola for so long.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given me some notice of his concern, which I am sure the House will understand and share. I understand that the Foreign Office has had further meetings with UNITA officials this afternoon to discuss the plight of the British oil workers held captive and has been assured that UNITA is actively trying to arrange for those people to be flown out. My right hon. Friend's officials will continue to pursue the case very urgently.
Mr. Stephen Byers: Can I press the Leader of the House to find time for an early debate on the Royal Navy? He will be aware that the House has not debated the navy since June 1991 and, in addition, that the Ministry of Defence is about to take important decisions on those projects that will form the long-term programme and forward plan for the Ministry of Defence. Given the importance of the naval procurement programme to shipbuilding communities like those on Tyneside, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate so that the views of the House can be heard before the Secretary of State for Defence reaches final decisions?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's request, but I cannot go beyond what I have already, I think reasonably forthcomingly, said to his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the possibility of a debate on defence and foreign affairs issues.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on children's play and recreation? He may be aware that, from 1 April, ring-fenced funding for children's play will no longer exist and that what funding there is will go through the Sports Council rather than through the National Children's Play and Recreation Unit. There is concern on all sides of the House about the issue of children's play, and I would be grateful for an early opportunity to raise this in a debate.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I can satisfy my hon. Friend reasonably rapidly. The motion on the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 6) which I announced for next Thursday covers community care issues.
Mr. David Trimble: Can we have a clear indication from the Leader of the House as to when the Secretary of State for Scotland will announce the results of his taking stock exercise? Can it be done in the form of a proper debate in which we can fully explore the United Kingdom dimension, so that, before the status of Scotland and Scottish business in the House is enhanced, Northern Ireland business can be lifted to at least the present level enjoyed by Scotland, so that we do not suffer even greater discrimination?
Mr. Newton: Had the hon. Gentleman been able to be here—I have no doubt that he was pursuing urgent business—he could perhaps have asked that question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday.
Mr. Trimble: I was here.
Mr. Newton: In that case, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that he did not get the opportunity to ask the question.
As to the thrust of his main question, I strongly suspect that there would in other parts of the House perhaps be some objection to an announcement taking the form directly of a debate rather than of a statement followed by some opportunity for hon. Members to consider what it said.
Mr. Michael Spicer: As the Government are very wisely not proceeding next week with the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, and are therefore presumably in no great hurry to complete the Bill, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that Ministers in future will at least be given an opportunity to wind up after debates rather than before, and that the Government will not close a debate before they have had an opportunity to do so?
Mr. Newton: I probably ought to make it clear to my hon. Friend, while appreciating his motivation and dedication on this subject, that I do not wish to validate the interpretation that he placed on next week's business in his introductory remarks. As to the rest, he would not expect me to give undertakings about the details of handling the Bill from day to day, except, to pick up the words that he actually used, that I am not aware of Ministers having sought to wind up a debate before it had started.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the Leyland DAF situation as soon as possible and, more important, on the wider aspects

479
of Government support for industry? People watching the proceedings today on television will have been perplexed to see, in the range of one question time, one Minister lauding the £300 million given in taxpayers' money to encourage Nissan and then his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saying that we should not support indigenous manufacturing industries which are otherwise sound. It is perplexing to hon. Members, and even more perplexing to people outside. We need a debate.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Member has asked two questions. On his request for a debate, I cannot add to what I have said on a number of economic and related issues in earlier exchanges this afternoon. On his second point, my understanding is that no rules would prevent any firm from applying for regional selective assistance; but that is not the principal issue that he has in mind, I think.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Can my right hon. Friend promise the House a full debate on local government corruption, as it has been reported, or at least a full statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? Our debates on the revenue support grant for England have passed, and soon local councils will be setting their council tax and householders will be receiving bills through their letter boxes. It is a matter of great concern to many millions of citizens that councils are reported to have deep-rooted corruption within them, and it is time that the House discussed that issue.
Mr. Newton: I am well aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, which I believe is widely shared. I must rest on the proposition that there have been or will be at least four opportunities to debate local government matters in a short space of time. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have shown some ingenuity in raising the issue to which my hon. Friend referred on those and other occasions.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on law and order? The crime rate is rising, the detection rate is falling, and the courts are half-empty—I declare an interest as a barrister—because nobody seems to be arrested any more. Labour has been out of power for 14 years, and in the Government's 14 years in power law and order has got into quite a mess. It is time to debate that issue.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be here to answer questions this day week.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on tourism, which is of great and growing importance to the British economy? It has not been debated in the House for five years.
Mr. Newton: I cannot give an immediate promise, but that issue has been raised several times in recent weeks and I will certainly bear it in mind.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on workfare, so that the House can discuss all its aspects and the Government's proposal to throw several hundred thousand more people out of
480
work this year and then call upon them to clean the streets or whatever? At the same time, Members of Parliament are picking up £30,000 a year—and some do not turn up for work. More than 200 Tory Members of Parliament have 500 consultancies and directorships between them, and 19 Tory ex-Cabinet Ministers have 52 directorships between them. Let us have a proper debate about workfare and the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his Tory friends look after one another.
Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, I shall seek to resist the provocation that I am offered. I will simply say that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation bears no relationship whatever to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last night.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On the evening opening of betting shops, about which I asked last week, I understand that a prayer has been laid against us by the Opposition, and that there are two early-day motions—Nos 1311 and 1175.
[That this House expresses its concern that the plans to extend the opening hours of licensed betting offices has already resulted in Ladbrokes issuing revised contracts with the threat that refusal to sign will result in individuals being given notice to terminate their existing contracts; and calls upon the Government to take this into account when amending the law to ensure that existing workers are not penalized.]
Will the House have an opportunity to debate that matter? There is growing concern among right hon. and hon. Members that betting companies are forcing employees to sign new contracts, failing which they will be fired—and there are no proper safeguards in that industry.
Mr. Newton: Any thoughts that the Government have about those matters may be expressed at the Statutory Instruments Committee next Thursday. As I understand it, they do not affect the rights of betting office employees, which would remain a matter for discussion between them and the companies that employ them.
Mr. John Denham: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early opportunity to debate the waste of millions of pounds by Wessex regional health authority in the light of today's reports of the confidential district auditor's study? It shows that the chairman of that authority, Sir Robin Buchanan, appears to have been personally involved in disastrous decisions —including the removal of penalty clauses from contracts with private sector companies and creating the situation in which an IBM employee was advising the authority on the purchase of IBM equipment.
May the House have an early opportunity to debate that appalling waste of money and the bumbling incompetence with which the Department of Health failed to supervise Wessex regional health authority, despite grave public concern stretching back to the mid-1980s?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to promise an early debate on that subject, but I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. John Bowis: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that next week's debate on the Maximum Number of Judges Order will give the House an opportunity to ascertain whether enough judges are available to

481
adjudicate in cases involving allegations of fraud in Labour councils in London and elsewhere? There will be a number of such cases.
Mr. Newton: A few months ago, I referred to the ingenuity with which such matters had been introduced. My hon. Friend's question certainly falls into the ingenious category. The issue of what is in order during next week's debate will, of course, be a matter for whoever is in the Chair.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not, at the very least, deeply disquieting that a report from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council that went to the Secretary of State for Social Security last autumn, and recommended benefits for miners whose work underground had left them with emphysema and chronic bronchitis, has still not been acted on by the Government? Is the Leader of the House aware that many of the intended beneficiaries have died, week by week, since last August, and that many others have to struggle even to breathe? May we have a statement from the Secretary of State next week?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise what the right hon. Gentleman requests. I can say, however, that—having held responsibilities in such maters myself for some time —I know of the difficulty and complexity of some of the issues raised, and I consider it right for my right, hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to give them careful and proper consideration.
Mr. John Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on a subject that I believe will be of grave concern to the House? Is he aware that Peter Sutcliffe—the Yorkshire ripper—is seeking to publish his memoirs? Does he appreciate the enormous revulsion that will be felt by the people of Yorkshire, not least the families of victims?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that many will share my hon. Friend's view. He will be aware of the opinion expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on a not entirely dissimilar matter that came up during Prime Minister's Question Time last week. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's concern to his attention.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Should not the Secretary of State for Defence make his announcements about the Navy's helicopter carrier in the House of Commons, rather than on "Newsnight"? On that programme, when the Secretary of State was asked whether he intended to cancel the order for the carrier, he said, "No, it's not true." We have been trying for weeks to get him to say that in the House of Commons. Will he come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement, either tomorrow or next week?
Mr. Newton: That question is—if I may use the vernacular—a bit over the top. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State very properly came to the House only yesterday to make a substantial statement, on which, if I remember rightly, the hon. Gentleman managed to question him—[Interruption.] In any event, there was certainly a clear opportunity for him to ask the question that he has just mentioned.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I think that many hon. Members will be baffled about the dog that didn't bark, knowing how keen the Government are to get
482
the Maastricht treaty on to the statute book. Why are we not debating it next week? Perhaps my right hon. Friend could take the House into his confidence. Is it that the Liberal party has not agreed to be there next week, or something?
Mr. Newton: I have already taken the House into my confidence: I have announced the wide range of important business with which the House needs to deal.
Mr. Ray Powell: In considering next week's business, will the Leader of the House also consider what happened on 22 January, when the House voted for my Shops (Amendment) Bill by a majority of 173? Now that the Standing Committee has been set up, will he assure me that it will not be held up unduly? I understand from rumours that the Committee stage of the Osteopaths Bill is being deliberately delayed so that my Committee will have to wait.
I waited eight months for the Bill to be given a Second Reading. Surely the Government should now allow time for a Committee to debate it.
Mr. Newton: 1 and my right hon. Friends the business managers certainly have no interest in doing anything other than ensuring that measures that have been granted a Second Reading are properly discussed in Committee. As for the right hon. Gentleman's specific point, while I understand the reason that he made it, the Osteopaths Bill is also a very important measure of considerable interest to many people.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind the great importance to children and the nation of the key stage 3 English tests and the great uncertainty created by the call by the National Union of Teachers to boycott them, may we have a statement or debate next week to resolve the problem so that children may know, as they need to, that the tests will go ahead and that they can prepare properly for them?
Mr. Newton: The Government's intention that the tests should go ahead as planned has repeatedly been made clear, and was, I think, reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—I hope to my hon. Friend's pleasure —only a few minutes ago.
Mr. Alex Sahnond: Will the Leader of the House now answer the question that he was asked: why no Maastricht Bill debate next week? Is he losing his nerve? When can we look forward to discussing the Government's taking-stock talking shop proposals for Scotland?
Mr. Newton: On the latter subject, I cannot add to what I have said and to what my right hon. Friend no doubt said during Scottish questions yesterday; nor can I say very much more on the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, beyond what I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). We shall discuss a wide range of business—Welsh revenue support, the Housing and Urban Development Bill, community care and private business selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means, as well as private Members' motions, about which the House would certainly feel aggrieved were they to be swept away by Government business—which needs discussion in the week for which I have today announced the business.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and ask for a debate on tourism soon? My constituency's economy relies heavily on tourism. Nationally, £8 billion was contributed to the British economy last year by visitors from abroad. Much has been said today about the balance of payments, but it is only too easy to overlook tourists' great contribution to our economy.
Mr. Newton: I shall add my hon. Friend's request, which I well understand in view of the nature of the area that he represents, to the growing list of such requests which, as I have already said, I shall bear in mind.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1251, which has been signed by 115 hon. Members?
[That this House believes that, to implement an EC Directive on the Use of Personal Protective Equipment, which makes it compulsory for the Sikhs, against their religion, to wear protective headgear whilst working in the non-construction industry, is an attack on the freedom of the Sikh religion; further believes that the effects of the EC Directive will mean widespread dismissals, demotions, redeployment and loss of promotion opportunities for Sikhs; and calls on the Government to reconsider its decision and grant an exemption for members of the Sikh community with similar terms to that already granted for construction areas.]
It is a matter of great importance to the Sikhs, who are a large section of the community and who will be affected by the EC directive. It will be mandatory for them to wear protective gear while working in the non-construction industry. I belong to the same community. Unless the community is exempted from wearing protective gear, it will be an attack on the religion of the Sikhs. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on this issue?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks. He is right to say that we are talking about the implementation of a Community directive. I understand that the issues involved are complex and cause strong feeling. The right course is to draw his remarks to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is the delay on the Maastricht debate due to the continued ill health of the ERM—is it because last week it was the punt, this week it is the kroner and next week it will probably be the franc? Are the Government terrified that they will finish up having to recommend to the House a dead mechanism?
Mr. Newton: I will try to choose slightly different words to say for the third time that the programme of business for next week has absolutely nothing to do with any of the factors to which my hon. Friend referred. It has to do with the fact that we also have other important business with which the House needs to deal.
Several hon. Members rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Jim Marshall: I am grateful that the gestures of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have such weight in this place.
Does the Leader of the House recall that, two weeks ago, I raised with him the reduction in section 11
484
expenditure for many inner-city schools? It will affect many thousands of children from ethnic minority backgrounds. The Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 1183 in my name, which is signed by nearly 100 hon. Members and which expresses the increasing disquiet and anger that is being felt throughout the country.
[That this House is appalled at the Government decision to cut the level of financial support available for Section 11 expenditure; notes that this reduction will adversely affect those parliamentary constituencies with ethnic minority populations from Commonwealth countries; believes that this decision will undermine the education of these children who learn English as a second language, with the result that they will be deprived access to the full range of educational opportunities with consequential effects on their examination results, their access to higher education and their role in society as equal citizens; and urges the Government to withdraw this discriminatory, unjust and shortsighted policy.]
I know that the Home Secretary will be here to answer questions soon, but that is not sufficient. I urge the Leader of the House to urge his right hon. and learned Friend to come to the House and make a statement, or the Leader of the House should arrange an urgent debate.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, but I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a strong rumour going around the House that, in the next few weeks, he will find time to arrange a debate on energy matters. Will he confirm that any such debate will enable hon. Members with constituencies that no longer have coal mines to point out that their constituents have had to suffer considerable change without the enormous support and suggested subsidy that was recently canvassed for coal mining communities?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be an opportunity in that debate for us to make the point that, if there is to be considerable Government support, constituencies such as mine of Dover should also receive it?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps that is an advance bid for a slot in the debate which will take place on my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's White Paper. If I might take the liberty, I draw that bid to your attention, Madam Speaker.
Ms Jean Corston: In view of the fact that on both sides of the House there is a recognition that the interests of representative democracy would be better served if there were more women Members, and since the job of a Member of Parliament should be commensurate with a decent home and family life, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Select Committee report on the reform of the sitting hours of the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will know that we are seeking to advance discussion of those matters through the usual channels, with a view to making the progress that the hon. Lady would like.
Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the Prime Minister's statement today that there could be a discussion of the workfare proposals which he sailed out yesterday, could we not have a very early debate on that subject? Surely the right way to keep unemployed people in touch with the world of work is to find them jobs, and the right way to keep the House in touch with the unemployment situation is to debate it. Perhaps that is the only way to keep the Secretary of State for Employment in touch with what the Prime Minister is going to say about unemployment.
Mr. Newton: I have already said in my reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South that I anticipate that the House will have a considerable opportunity to debate economic matters within the next month or so, taking account of the impending Budget.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Leader of the House aware of the deep sense of outrage that is felt by some of my constituents at the implications in the Prime Minister's remarks last night that the long-term unemployed are unemployed not because of his Government's economic policies but because they are not looking sufficiently hard for work? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his best offices to urge his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement about workfare to the House, and not at the Carlton club?
Mr. Newton: First, I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's remarks carried that implication. Rather, they made clear the Government's wish to do everything possible to help those who, unhappily, have been unemployed for a long time to find work again. Secondly, as for my right hon. Friend coming to the House, he was here and he extensively commented on the subject.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I back the call of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) for a debate on the European Community proposals for headgear at construction sites and the like? During that debate, we could highlight the support given by the Conservative Government to the Sikh community and its concerns in the Employment Act 1989.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's helpful comments. Obviously, I cannot add to what I said earlier on the specific request for a debate.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or a statement on the Government's cost-reduction exercises in the NHS? Is he aware that last night, Committee Room 14 was packed with people from all walks of life who are deeply concerned that the Government might introduce prescription charges for contraceptives? Is he aware that such a proposal would be serious socially, lead to many unwanted pregnancies and probably save no money whatever? Is he aware that people in my constituency want some decent research at a reasonable cost to produce quality products at prices which the NHS can afford?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman probably would not expect me to promise a debate in response to his question, but I will draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. John McAllion: Arising from the action taken by the management at Timex in Dundee,
486
which is simply tearing up current agreements which were negotiated with the workers and imposing wage cuts and redundancies on the work force, will the Leader of the House find time to debate the erosion of trade union rights which has given birth to brutal management? The erosion of trade union rights and the rise of brutal management are hitting jobs and destroying the economy not only in Dundee but throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Newton: Without commenting on the specific case —and still less accepting some of the language used by the hon. Gentleman—I simply make the point that the House has before it at present a fairly wide-ranging Employment Bill on which some of those matters will undoubtedly be relevant in due course.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Can we have a debate in the near future on the seminar on deregulation which was held by the Prime Minister recently? The Prime Minister could then explain why, in 1992, the Government produced 3,359 statutory instruments, producing the largest number of regulations, rules and orders in the history of any Government or any Parliament, and how double standards apply in that case? Those who claim to take government off people's backs are piling it on in a move towards centralisation and dictatorship.
Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear during Prime Minister's Question Time about three quarters of an hour ago, the deregulation initiative has been launched precisely to deal with aspects of the problem of centralisation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Did the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) hear the statement?
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Yes.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Deva.
Mr. Deva: I ask my right hon. Friend to support the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) to discuss the motion about Sikh turbans. It is a matter of grave concern to my constituents, and I should be pleased if my right hon. Friend would take note of my views.
Mr. Newton: I certainly take note of all views that are expressed to me, not least those of my hon. Friend. I cannot add to what I said earlier.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Members' interests.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I have said previously to the hon. Gentleman but that does not mean that I have lost interest in the matter.
Mr. David Winnick: I welcome the fact that at least next week will be free from Maastricht, but will it be possible to have an early debate on the economy? Bearing in mind the daily shambles—one is not certain whether the Prime Minister or the Chancellor is in charge of the economy—the contradictions and the question whether interest rates will remain at the present rate, increase or go down, why can we not have a debate on the whole subject as quickly as possible?
Mr. Newton: I have already responded to a slightly less aggressive question of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I do not think that I shall seek to go beyond that in responding to the more aggressive stance adopted by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Roads (Investment)
4.8 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the Government's plans for investment in national roads in 1993–94. I made a statement to the House on 15 December about the Government's record level of support for expenditure on roads by local authorities. I am now pleased to be able to announce similar good news for the national road network of motorways and trunk roads.
I am authorising the start of construction works in the coming financial year on 41 new road schemes. Assuming the remaining statutory processes are completed, we will have started all the schemes by March next year. They represent new investment in the nation's infrastructure of over £1·3 billion. I am arranging for a list of the schemes to be included in the Official Report and made available in the Vote Office.
Expenditure on new construction and maintenance of national roads will reach £2,092 million in 1993–94. This is the highest level for over 20 years in real terms and one of the highest ever. In a difficult year for public expenditure, this level of spending clearly demonstrates the extent of the Government's commitment to capital expenditure and to investing in the nation's road and—as we showed on Tuesday—rail infrastructure. The sum includes £550 million for the capital maintenance of roads and bridges, and £1,369 million for new road construction.
The 41 new starts are in addition to the substantial construction programme which is currently taking place. We have 51 schemes under construction, mostly started in the past couple of years. During 1993–94 100 miles of new or improved roads will be opened to traffic.
One aim of the programme is to tackle increasing congestion on the core motorway network: we will be adding a fourth lane to 18 route miles of motorway, including the M25 in Surrey and the M62 in Greater Manchester. The north-west will also see the start of construction on the long awaited remaining link on the M65 around Blackburn. The biggest single project to start will be the upgrading to motorway of 13 miles of the Al between Walshford and Dishforth in north Yorkshire, part of the A1 motorway between London and Newcastle.
Another key objective of the road programme is removing through traffic from our towns and villages. Nineteen bypass schemes will be built across the country, taking heavy traffic away from streets in towns and villages. In addition, on-line improvements will be started on 11 other routes, including the A66 northern trans-Pennine road, the A 11 to Norwich, and the A27 south coast route.
I am particularly pleased that we will now be able to start work next year in tackling some of the worst bottlenecks in London through a programme of nine junction improvements and other schemes. Taken in conjunction with the red routes network, which will also come on stream from 1994, this is a sensible, cost-effective and environmentally friendly response to congestion in the capital.
All these 41 new schemes will bring substantial economic, safety and environmental benefits to road users and the country as a whole. They are particularly important in helping to reduce the costs of congestion to industry. The value of the benefits from these new schemes

489
in terms of accidents avoided and time savings to road users has been assessed at £2·5 billion. That is before any allowance for the net environmental gain achieved by reducing urban congestion and taking traffic away from town and village centres. All the new schemes have, of course, been subject to full environmental assessment and have been designed sensitively to fit into the landscape as closely as possible. This is how we aim to minimise any adverse environmental effects; indeed, we can sometimes reduce the environmental effects of an existing road with a new scheme.
The £550 million to be spent on capital maintenance is a 12 per cent. increase in real terms. I will be announcing the details of the maintenance works before the start of the new financial year, but I can confirm now that sufficient

National roads New starts for
1993–94

Region

Road number

Scheme name

Total works cost 1 £ million

Miles

Northern

A66

Stainmore—Banksgate

11

3·7

North West

M62

Junctions 14–17 widening

13

2·5

North West

M65

Blackburn southern bypass (Contract 1)

56

13·1

North West

A6M—M56 link (Central section)

16

2·2

Yorkshire and Humberside

A1(M)

Walshford—Dishforth

113

13·1

Yorkshire and Humberside

A65

Burley in Wharfdale bypass

9

1·8

Yorkshire and Humberside

A65

Gargrave bypass

7

3·7

West Midlands

A45

Stonebridge grade separated junction

12

1·3

West Midlands

A50

Blythe bridge—Queensway (Phase 1)

73

3·0

West Midlands

A435

Norton—Lenchwick bypass

24

7·5

East Midlands

A17

Leadenham bypass

3

6·0

East Midlands

A17

Wigtoft—Sutterton

7

3·0

East Midlands

A52

Ashbourne relief road

4

1·6

Eastern

All

Besthorpe—Wymondham improvement

25

5·4

Eastern

All

Stump cross—Fourwentways improvement

28

3·4

Eastern

A12

Lowestoft eastern relief road

1

0·8

Eastern

A47

Walpole—Tilney high end bypass

23

6·2

Eastern

A140

Scole—Dickleburgh

12

1·3

Eastern

A428

Bedford southern bypass

51

5·4

Eastern

M40

Junction 1A–3 widening

55

7·5

London

A12

Hackney—M11 (Contracts 2 and 4)

122

2·4

London

A13

Cotton street

8

0·6

London

A13

Butcher row

1

0·1

London

A13

Heathway—Thames avenue

54

5·0

London

A13

Thames avenue—Wennington

58

3·1

London

A40

Long lane—West end road widening

4

1·5

London

A406

East of Falloden way

42

1·4

London

A406

Dysons road

63

1·5

London

M1

Junction 1

5

0·4

South East

A27

Patching junction improvement

11

1·6

South East

A249

North of Iwade—M2 improvement

47

7·0

South East

A303

Bullington cross

4

2·5

South East

M25

Junctions 10–11 widening

36

4·8

South East

M25

Junctions 7–8 widening

32

3·1

Southwest

A30

Shallowater hill

2

1·3

South West

A30

Indian queens, Fraddon, St. Columb road bypass

21

5·3

SouthWest

A31

Ashley heath grade separated junction

11

1·0

South West

A46

Batheaston—Swainswick bypass

51

3·3

South West

A417

Brockworth bypass

32

3·3

SouthWest

M5

J18 improvement and Avonmouth relief road

13

1·0

TOTALS

41 Schemes

1,148

141·6

1 Including VAT.

funding will be in place in 1993–94 to avoid deteriorating road conditions, as well as ensuring that the programme of bridge strengthening remains on course. Higher expenditure on maintenance will also mean that the latest techniques of traffic management can be applied to minimise delays to the road user.
The levels of investment that I am announcing today will continue to meet the needs of business and the community and provide the right conditions for economic growth. In addition, I shall be publishing a Green Paper on the basis for charging for the use of inter-urban roads which will also examine the scope for attracting more private finance.
Following are the schemes:
Mr. John Prescott: The statement today announcing billions of pounds of investment on the roads, welcome though it may be in certain areas and perhaps in producing extra jobs, contrasts vividly with this week's statement on British Rail. That announced that, in the same year as this increase in roads investment will occur, British Rail investment will be cut by half, causing thousands of redundancies in the railway industry and the manufacturing industries that are dependent on it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman have an assessment of the job gains and losses in those areas? May we be assured that it will be full-time labour for full-time work and not the work gang dole labour which the Prime Minister has now discovered?
Does the Secretary of State accept that this policy sounds the death knell for the Government's commitment, given at the Rio summit, to reduce exhaust gas emissions, which requires the very opposite strategy to that which he is adopting, to encourage the greater use of public transport?
Does he accept that the Department's estimate of traffic growth, of 140 per cent. in 25 years, will require a motorway of 270 lanes from London to Edinburgh—just to park the vehicles? Is he aware, and will he make it clear, that we cannot possibly build our way out of this environmental disaster based on that kind of policy?
Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to continue adding to the road congestion, considering his announcements this week, by forcing British Rail to move hundreds of thousands of lorry loads of rail freight on to the roads? Does he really believe that his programme will relieve bottlenecks in London? Would it not be better to scrap the silly proposal to deregulate London Buses and finance alternative rail projects such as crossrail, Network SouthEast and Paddington-Heathrow and encourage people to use public transport more, rather than private vehicles which add to the congestion?
When can we expect publication of the Green Paper on road pricing and private finance? Is he aware that the private financing of the recently opened £100 million QEII bridge at Dartford is encouraging, with the growth of mega-shopping centres on either side of the bridge, a demand to build 14 lanes on the M25, at a cost of billions of pounds, to encourage people to take shopping trips on what is our most strategic motorway? That is not an intelligent use of public resources.
Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's policy will force people off public transport and into private road car transport, thereby providing a new, massive finance tax for the Treasury at the expense of the environment and adding to congestion on the transport system?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count, and I am sure that the country will note his extremely grudging welcome—he could hardly get a word of welcome out—for our record road programme. There are communities and businesses all over the country and hon. Members in all parts of the House who have been pressing for it and will warmly welcome it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to British Rail investment being cut by half. He will know that next year, British Rail's investment will be at record levels—[Interruption.] —or certainly higher than at any time in the last 30 years.
Mr. Prescott: When?
Mr. MacGregor: In 1993–94. That is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the anticipated level of investment in British Rail next year.
Bearing in mind that 90 per cent. of all passenger and freight traffic goes by road, the levels of investment that we are proposing for the roads, national and local, next year amounts to £2·9 billion compared with £2·2 billion on public transport, and local authority public transport gains from the benefits of the road programme. So to suggest that we are putting the entire emphasis on the road programme and not on public transport is completely and wholly wrong and is not borne out by the figures.
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman has just proved it.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman says that I have just proved it, so I will give him the figures again. They are £2·9 billion on roads, including roads which benefit public transport, and £2·2 billion on public transport, given that 90 per cent. of all traffic goes on roads. I should have thought it clear that we are doing a great deal for public transport.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the environmental disadvantages. He should know that there are substantial environmental advantages from taking traffic out of towns and villages through our bypass programme, and that enabling traffic to move at proper levels, instead of at congested levels, improves exhaust gas emissions. He ought also to know what we are doing with catalytic converters and in all sorts of other ways to improve that. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that what creates the traffic forecasts and traffic growth is economic growth itself which inevitably creates more freight, traffic and, inevitably, more people wishing to use more cars and to use them to their own benefit on the roads. It is to that we are responding which is why I say I believe the programme I have announced today will receive a wide welcome from industry which is constantly pressing for it, and from car passengers.
Mr. Prescott: He hasn't got a clue.
Mr. MacGregor: It is not me who has not got a clue, it is the hon. Gentleman who is way out of touch with reality. Finally, can I say to him on London—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman just cannot face up to the facts. Let me turn to London. He talked about the London position. May I point out to him that the red route programme that we are introducing will greatly assist public transport in itself and has led to an increase in public transport in the pilot areas because it has helped to deal with congestion. When the hon. Member looks at the figures for London next year he will see that for every pound we are spending on the road programme, which is very important for docklands, for the north circular and for easing congestion in central London, we are spending £3 on public transport in London.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the Secretary of State ignore the over-rehearsed carping from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and understand that his record announcement today will be warmly received right through the country, but not least in Cumbria where the improvement to the A66 road, which he has announced, will do a great deal to eliminate an appalling length of that

493
road which I think he knows himself? It is essential to improve that piece of road to link Cumbria with the east coast.
I wonder if my right hon. Friend will help me over one thing? There is a certain amount of misunderstanding as to whether the programe that he has announced will result in linking the Brough bypass with the newly-opened long stretch of dual carriageway over Bowes Moor and Stainmore. There is some doubt about this. Will he confirm that the new road will link those two existing bits of dual carriageway?
Mr. MacGregor: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend both for his general comments and for his specific welcome for the inclusion in the programme, as I said in my statement, of another scheme for the northern trans-Pennine route. I know that route well and was driving on it myself last Sunday evening. I therefore know how important it is that we have been able to carry through major improvements to that road. It is very important for business and to everyone who moves along that road, not least because the road has had a poor accident record and this will help to deal with it. I am happy to confirm that the project I have announced today will complete the dual section between Brough and Bowes.
Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the announcement made today, particularly for its effects on jobs, but is it not the case that it just gives detail to commitments already made in the autumn statement and that it is not quite the bonanza it is portrayed as, particularly as people in the northern region will be less than delighted to see only 3·7 miles of new road there, with no moves to improve the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh? I wonder whether it is quite as green as the Secretary of State would have us believe. Will not widening the M25 simply make it easier to get into logjams rather than relieving them, and bring more development pressure on the green belt area instead of regenerating the inner city?
Mr. MacGregor: I note the astonishingly grudging approach of the Liberal party. I wish the hon. Member would make up his mind whether he wants the improvements on the M25 or not; whether he wants the expanded road programme or not. He seems to reject some but to demand more in other areas. May I tell him that the improvements that I have announced to the Al to bring it up to motorway standard on a priority section. Clearly not all of it can be done at once and much is still going through statutory procedures, but the improvement that I have announced will be warmly welcomed by people from the north who travel on that road, particularly road hauliers and so on. It is very important for them. Jobs are a very important aspect of the programme I have announced today which will involve more than 30,000 jobs in the construction industry.
There is no doubt that one of the priorities that we need to deal with now is the M25, on environmental and other grounds which involve congestion, not least for businesses in the north and Scotland wishing to take advantage of the single market by going through the channel tunnel.
Mr. Stephen Day: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the A6M—M56 scheme, which runs through my constituency? The House will note that the announcement refers only to the central section. While
494
I welcome today's announcement, which is of great benefit to jobs and the relief of many villages, the central section is to be built four years ahead of the rest only because of private money from a local developer. I and my constituents support the completion of the whole scheme, which would give great relief to the villages of Bramhall and Woodford in my constituency. As only the central section of the scheme is being built, those villages will suffer from increased car movements. I urge my right hon. Friend to complete the rest of the scheme as soon as possible.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He refers to the first of three linked projects to relieve congestion in the south of the Greater Manchester conurbation and to provide a link road to Manchester airport. A number of schemes cannot yet go ahead as they are still subject to statutory procedures. It is the intention to complete the scheme, and I am sure that he will welcome the major start this coming year.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his proposals for the widening of the M25, the north circular and the A1 3 will increase road traffic, congestion and pollution in London and lower the environmental standards of our already overcrowded capital city? Is it not time that he took a real look at the transport needs of London and put real investment into the public transport infrastructure, lowering fares and developing new schemes such as the crossrail, which is so desperately needed to relieve congestion in this city?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that improving the M25-and its very existence—removes traffic from London. The M25 has taken about 25 per cent. of the traffic out of London and improving it, to prevent drivers looking for other routes, undoubtedly helps residents, helps with problems in central London and so on. These announcements are important for London and the hon. Gentleman is not right to suggest that through them we are diminishing the importance of investment in public transport. As I said, for every £1 being spent on road projects in London, £3 is being spent on public transport.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is not it necessary for any Transport Secretary to have a policy of investment in all forms of transport infrastructure? Is the Secretary of State not therefore assured of a welcome from dispassionate minded people for his statement this afternoon? Can he confirm that the A31 Ashley Heath junction in Dorset in my constituency is included in his scheme? Will he nevertheless bear in mind that it is perhaps only wishful thinking that reminds some of my constituents that that junction is built on the site of the former Ringwood-Wimborne railway line? My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), in his reference to Stainmore, welcomes a road being built on another railway line. Even at this stage, will the Secretary of State consider imposing a ban on the sale of disused track bed so that we do not destroy future possible transport options?
Mr. MacGregor: I noticed my hon. Friend's welcome, at the beginning of his question about a balanced infrastructure programme, which is what we are achieving. I can confirm, and I hope that he will welcome this warmly, that the Ashley Heath new grade separated

495
junction is being included among schemes next year. He refers to the fact that it is on an old railway line, but we must take into account that a considerable number of railway lines have ceased to have custom and that it therefore makes sense to make use of them, wherever possible, for road projects. I hope that he will not ignore the importance of that.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: While many people in the north-west will welcome the statement about the extension of the M65 from Blackburn to the M6, can the Secretary of State take the opportunity to end damaging speculation about the possible extension of the M65 eastwards over the Pennines? He will appreciate that it finishes in Colne in my constituency and that that has sterilised many acres of land there for far too long.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Pennine study is a very important one. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has indicated one route that we would wish to exclude from it. We are considering the study and obviously wish to come to decisions as quickly as is practicable.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Bedford is the largest town in England that has not been bypassed? Does he realise that this is paralysing business and the movement of traffic across the river? This is a very urgent matter indeed and I hope that he can do something to expedite it.
Mr. MacGregor: I am very pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Bedford southern bypass is being included in the programme next year. It will be a dual carriageway bypass, at a total cost of £51 million.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the only aspect of his statement that I welcome is the statement in relation to bypasses? Is he aware that I have been trying to get bypasses at Girvan, Maybole, New Cumnock and Mauchline for many years—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are well aware that that is not included in the statement. Hon. Members must question the Secretary of State precisely on the statement, not on wishful thinking as to what might happen in the future.
Mr. Foulkes: That is precisely the point, because what I want to ask the Secretary of State is whether he, as a member of the Cabinet, knows when Scottish Members will get a statement about the roads programme in Scotland? When will we be able to ask questions about—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is questioning the wrong Minister on these issues.
Mr. Ray Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the great majority of the people of this country, unlike Opposition Members, well understand that, however much we improve the railways, it is essential to continue the development of the roads on the lines that he has described? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure, wherever possible, that the management of individual road development projects is conducted in such
496
a way as to retain the maximum speed of development, so that the disruption to local residents is kept to the minimum? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend use, wherever possible, the noise reduction aids that are increasingly available, such as porous asphalt?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes two very important points and I can assure him that we endeavour to complete the schemes with a minimum of disruption to those who are affected. Indeed, the record of construction in this country shows that we are one of the fastest in the world in completing the construction of roads. I can also tell him that, with the programme so heavily focused on the widening of motorways and bypasses, not new roads, there is much less disruption to a whole range of people who would have been affected by the construction of new roads. Widening existing motorways helps very much with that. On his second point, about asphalt, yes, we are endeavouring to use it wherever possible, and it will obviously be looked at in the case of a scheme which is coming in his constituency.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has not announced any proposals to improve the road or rail communications between Sheffield and Manchester? These are two major cities in this country. The communications between them are appalling, and this is bad for business. Can he tell the House whether he has any plans to improve this situation in the future and whether, as part of his statement, he will give a commitment to start funding the planning process to ensure that communications are improved?
Mr. MacGregor: The communications to which the hon. Gentleman refers are contained in the trans-Pennine study. That was a major study and we are now looking at it very carefully. There are also, as he will know, improvements going on to the M62.
Mr. Richard Tracey: While, as a London Member, tending to prefer railway development at the moment, I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said about bypasses in so many parts of the country. I am particularly after one to bypass Malden Rushett, in my constituency. Can he assure the House that the aggregates that will be used in this particularly valuable work of road building and bridge maintenance throughout the country will come from our own resources, from marine and land-based resources, and certainly not from abroad, which would of course do considerable damage to our balance of payments?
Mr. MacGregor: On my hon. Friend's first point, as it is very important to get the balance clear, it is worth stressing that in the coming financial year London Transport and Network SouthEast are expected to invest nearly three times as much as the Department will spend on the construction and capital maintenance of roads in London.
With regard to my hon. Friend's second point, I have to say that there are competitive elements that contractors have to take into account. However, so far as I am aware, the vast bulk of aggregates come from here.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. Will the plans that he has

497
announced lead to upgrading of the route between Seaforth and Hull and, therefore, to widening of the choice of routes to Europe?
Mr. MacGregor: That is not in the programme to which this statement relates.
Mr. Michael Lord: Nothing in my right hon. Friend's statement will be more welcome than his announcement that a bypass is to be provided at Scole, on the Norfolk-Suffolk border, which he and I know very well. There is immense pressure on the roads in East Anglia. This arises from commercial as well as holiday traffic. There will be delight that the great disruption that occurs in the area throughout the year—but particularly at holiday times—is to be cured. I urge my right hon. Friend to do all he can, in the slightly longer term, to have the A140 dualled from one end to the other.
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend is closely interested in this road, as, indeed, I am. I am aware also of his interest in the A140, which goes through his constituency. He knows that that matter is being examined at the moment by consultants, as the first stage in the whole process. On the question of the Scole bypass, which is in the programme for next year, my hon. Friend will know that in December I made an announcement about the local authority aspect. I am glad to be able to confirm now that the trunk road aspect will be completed at the same time. My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that this will be warmly welcomed.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: While the announcement that the M65 is to be linked to the M6 and the national motorway network is extremely welcome news for Burnley and north-east Lancashire, are there any plans for associated steps to improve the M6 between the M61 and the M55-a length of road whose capacity is becoming increasingly overstretched?
Mr. MacGregor: There is a programme in respect of this matter. If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific points he has raised.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the representations made to him by myself, the borough council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk and the local business community that the A47 at Walpole-Tilney bypass should be started have been listened to and that the project will go ahead? Can he tell the House when draft orders in respect of the flyover at the Hardwick roundabout will be issued?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend and I have corresponded and talked on a number of occasions about the second point that he raised, and he knows that it was raised with me recently when I paid a visit to his constituency. As he knows, there have been technical delays in respect of the orders. The position has not changed since the last time we talked, but I shall continue to watch it very carefully.
498
I can confirm that the Walpole-Tilney High End bypass is included in next year's programme. The total cost of the scheme will be £23 million. It is a further development of the upgrading of the A47 to dual carriageway status. I know how important it is to everyone in Norfolk that that upgrading should continue so that the routes from Norfolk to the midlands may be developed in the same way as the routes to London and the south-east, which are being very substantially developed at the moment.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I note that, of the £1·1 billion expenditure that the Secretary of State announced today, only £11 million will be spent on the northern region. That is a matter about which I have some concern. My concern would be lessened if the Government were to make available to British Rail the money that it needs to upgrade the west coast main line. If communications in the north of England are to be improved, that line must be upgraded.
Mr. MacGregor: We discussed those matters on Tuesday. On a quick count, the figure for the northern region is £11 million, but for the north-west, which the west coast mainline also affects, the figure is a good deal higher.
Sir Roger Moate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents, including Labour voters—I know, because they tell me so—fully understand the importance for jobs and economic growth of the new road programme? They will have taken careful note of the hostility of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to the package of road building. As my constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates in the south-east of England—indeed, in the country—my right hon. Friend will know of the tremendous welcome that there will be in my district for the dualling of the A249 from the motorway through to Kingsferry bridge. I express my thanks for that decision after so many years of waiting. Will my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic continue the help and encouragement that they are giving to the joint public and private sector project for the development of the second Swale crossing, which continues the A249 to the Isle of Sheppey?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and should like to pay tribute to the work that he has done in frequently pressing for the scheme. He and I have had a number of exchanges on the scheme, and I am well aware of its importance to his constituency and his part of the world. The total cost of the scheme is £47 million. On my hon. Friend's second point, I assure him that my hon. Friend the Minister and I will continue to pursue the project that he mentioned, although I cannot make any promises.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am now bringing questions on the statement to a close.

Points of Order
4.42 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland may have inadvertently misled the House in an answer to a question on water privatisation. He said that his office had received about 3,000 submissions on water privatisation, but my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for the Fife constituencies and I delivered 90,000 individual signed submissions on 25 and 29 January. Is there some way to correct the error, as it gives the impression that not many people are writing to the Secretary of State about the issue?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates. All Ministers and Members are responsible for the statements they make in the House.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that you were understanding about my earlier frustration when I tried to ask a question about bypasses in my constituency. You rightly said that the Secretary of State for Transport was not responsible for that. I have been trying to arrange a meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland, or even the Under-Secretary of State, for a number of months, but they keep refusing. There has been no statement in the House similar to the one that the Secretary of State for Transport gave very well. Can you, Madam Speaker, do something to get the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the Dispatch Box and make an announcement on the roads programme in Scotland similar to the one that has been given in relation to England?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I have no authority to demand that a Secretary of State comes before the House. I very much understand the
500
frustration of all Back Benchers who seek to put questions to various Ministers. I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman; my heart bleeds for him, as his is a hard-luck case.
Mr. David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to express the annoyance that we in Northern Ireland feel about the matter. This morning my constituency office faxed me a letter about roads from one of the Northern Ireland Ministers. It is particularly galling to find that the last page of the statement delivered here refers to "national roads". Hon. Members for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are unable even to ask questions about the national roads that have not been announced in the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman might have sought to raise that issue with the Leader of the House in business questions. I remember calling him as he caught my eye then.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Madam Speaker: No, I will not take any further points of order.
Mr. Foulkes: I did not catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I know: that is why the hon. Gentleman is frustrated.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek to assist the process whenever I can. It occurred to me that it would be helpful to the House if, when statements are made about long lists of projects, they could be placed in the Vote Office, not when the Minister rises but well beforehand. That would allow hon. Members to get hold of a copy to see whether their constituencies are affected, which would cut out those people who ask whether their constituencies are affected and whether roads are being built. It would clarify questions to bring a sharpness and point to the interchange, which is occasionally, lamentably, absent.
Madam Speaker: That is a matter that might be taken up with the Leader of the House.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 1 February]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You may be aware that the votes at the close of proceedings in Committee last week gave rise to much mystification about what is afoot which has also been expressed in circles outside the House, particularly among those who only occasionally sit in on or view our proceedings. I think, and hope that you will be able to confirm, that the difficulties that arise are not due to the proceedings of the Committee and are not within the discretion of the Chair. They arise from the brevity of the Bill, and the length and complexity of the treaty that we are considering, which amends another treaty in order to form yet a third treaty that we have not seen. Difficulties are caused by the large number of amendments that can be tabled, a combination of votes on closures, suspensions of the rules and procedural questions that are not substantive.
  In future, to make things more difficult, we face the prospect of votes on substantive questions that have already been debated—the time of the decision and the vote may be separated by several weeks. If you, with your knowledge as the Chair, can confirm those facts, it might help you and the Committee. The problems we face relate not to the proceedings as set out in the Order Paper or your discretion, but to the nature of the Bill and the treaties.
  A few sittings ago, Mr. Morris, you kindly said that you and your Chairmen's Panel would consider the possibility of marking new amendments selected for debate on the informal circulation of provisional selections. You said that consultation would be needed, which we understand. You will know that it is not unknown in Committee for the Chair to draw to the attention of the Committee additional amendments of particular importance—indeed, any that have been added to the amendment paper.
  In the light of that semi-precedent, I was wondering whether you would consider whether, at the beginning of every sitting after today's—I think that we are to have a short break—you could announce verbally any additional amendments that you have selected since the informal selection. That would greatly assist members of the Committee, even those who have been Members of Parliament for some time. I am not asking for a ruling now, but I hope that you will consider the matter in the next day or two.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): As I understand it, the Committee is to be given a week off, and I shall seriously consider the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I think that there is some merit in his latter point. On the earlier issue that he raised, he was right to say that the Chair is constrained by the rules of
  502
  Committee procedure. The only addition that I can make to the comments of the hon. Gentleman is that we have spent more than five hours on points of order, which have not been totally productive.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I hope to spread an atmosphere of good will and consensus. An unpleasant suspicion has arisen—which I have tried to banish from my mind—that our proceedings have been conducted by a conspiracy between the two Front-Bench teams, to the exclusion of many other hon. Members.
  May I make a suggestion? It is obvious that the Government are not now as urgent in their desire to get the matter dealt with by the House as was apparent at one stage, and a large number of hon. Members from the regions, and especially from Northern Ireland, wish to discuss the matter fully. Rather than having a conspiracy between those in power who try to control the proceedings, perhaps it could be announced at this stage that consideration of this part of the Bill will continue no later than 10 o'clock tonight.
  That will be for the convenience of the House. It will also enable those who live in the regions of the United Kingdom—
  Mr. George Foulkes: And the other nations of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Budgen: However they may be described, the Committee will not be run in an aggressive English way which makes them feel that their contributions cannot properly be heard at a convenient time.
  The Chairman: I am most grateful for the harmonious way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised the point of order. Of course, the point he makes has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. As you can see, the amendments selected for discussion today dealing with the Committee for the Regions and the cohesion fund are matters in which hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have a very keen interest. The cohesion fund will pour billions of pounds into our near neighbour and aid its competitive position and disadvantage us, so many hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are anxious to participate in the debate at a civilised hour. We have obligations some distance away and travel is difficult between here and Northern Ireland.
  It may not be entirely within your control, Mr. Morris, but we would be very glad if proceedings could he conducted at a civilised hour, and, if that is not possible today, that the amendment be carried over for debate when we return to the issue.
  The Chairman: I share the hon. Gentleman's views about civilised hours. I was aware that hon. Members from the Province were likely to wish to catch my eye, so the sooner we get on with the job, the sooner they will be successful.
  Mr. Michael Alison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. In view of the interesting suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that a large number of colleagues from all parts of the House, particularly from Northern Ireland, might want to speak, and that

  503
  proceedings should perhaps be terminated at 10 o'clock tonight, will you consider the possibility of putting a limit of 10 minutes on speeches after 6 o'clock?
  The Chairman: That would have to be a voluntary limit, but it has much to commend it.
  Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I recognise that we are in Committee, but as you will know, there has been a good deal of informal discussion and debate on what is known as the Jopling report, which expresses the view of a number of Members about the hours that the House sits and the general desire that it should not go beyond 10 o'clock. Bearing in mind the fact that we are in Committee, would it not be useful if hon. Members knew in advance whether or not we would sit beyond 10 o'clock?
  At present, no information is given—I assume that that applies to both sides of the Committee—and we do not know whether we shall sit beyond 10 o'clock depending on whether the Government decide to move the necessary business motion at 10 o'clock and whether they get a majority. It is a rather odd and unfortunate way of proceeding, and I wonder whether you could advise us accordingly.
  The Chairman: It is not for me to advise, as I know no more than the hon. Gentleman.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I refer to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and make my point in the same spirit as he made his. We all appreciate his anxiety to return to his constituency this evening. He is very conscientious about that, but it should be placed on the record that the only conspiracy of which I am aware is between my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am sorry about my right hon. Friend's intervention, because it is my intention to add to the good will and harmony. As you know, Mr. Morris, one of the most important issues we are debating today is the cohesion fund. The House will take a decision today on whether we want to include the cohesion fund in the Bill.
  Imagine my consternation and surprise when I discovered that the European Commission has drafted a regulation on the basis of the cohesion fund without knowing whether the House would accept it. You are a man of great personality and influence, Mr. Morris, and I wonder whether, on behalf of the House, you could get in touch with the European institutions and ask them to delay taking those initiatives until the House has taken its decision.
  The Chairman: I have a full-time job dealing with the Committee, and it is certainly not my job to contact the Commission.
  Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I refer to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and I should like to ask, first, whether the
  504
  10-minute rule has ever been applied to a Committee of the whole House; and, secondly, whether it can be applied in that way.
  The Chairman: I regret to say that it cannot be applied; therefore, it is a voluntary rule. However, the list of hon. Members who have contributed to the debate includes some who have made most powerful and persuasive speeches in 10, 11 or 12 minutes which read exceedingly well, while some have taken several hours and are rather difficult to follow when read afterwards.
  Mr. Trimble rose—
  The Chairman: I hope that it is a new point of order, as the hon. Gentleman made a plea that he wanted to get cracking.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to the points of order which have been raised with such good humour and sense this afternoon, Mr. Morris. The groups of amendments that we are to consider this afternoon, and hopefully on another occasion when we consider the Bill, have a fundamental impact on the country. You will be aware that one or two major companies such as Leyland DAF, which was the subject of a statement in the House, have gone into administrative receivership and that therefore employment in some of the basic industries—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time. He is a member of the Chairmen's Panel and he should know that he should put a specific question to the Chair and not adduce an argument.
  Mr. Winterton: I am seeking briefly, and in the same vein as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), your advice and support for the views that have been put forward by hon. Members from all sides of the House about the importance of the group of amendments and the need to ensure that hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom participate because all parts of the United Kingdom are influenced. I make my plea at this early stage that such an important debate should continue into a second day.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman did not define a day in the first place, and his argument had already been put.
  Mr. Trimble rose—
  The Chairman: Is this a new point of order?
  Mr. Trimble: Yes. I am sorry to try your patience on this matter, Mr. Morris, but it has just been drawn to my attention—perhaps this is evidence of the conspiracy the Minister thinks does not exist—that, if the Committee were sitting upstairs, we would know in advance what the timing was. Perhaps it might be a good idea if some similar arrangment could be adopted here.
  The Chairman: I am not sure which hon. Gentleman pointed that out, but it was not totally accurate information.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the debate on the cohesion fund is important to all parts of the United Kingdom, particularly to Northern Ireland, which will be very badly treated. The southern Irish will receive between

  505
  £3 million and £6 million, while we will be left out altogether. Can you assure me that, for the first time, you will favour some hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, and myself particularly, and call them to speak to the Committee?
  The Chairman: Special pleading falls on deaf ears, but I recognise the importance of all parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Bearing in mind all that has been said and the difficulties of hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom who wish to speak, and bearing in mind the fact that, during debate on the Single European Act, the average number of amendments was three whereas in this instance we have 27 amendments and six new clauses, would it be helpful and convenient—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman raised that point of order at our last sitting, and I pointed out to him then that his submission was not accurate. Frankly, it is no more accurate today than it was on Monday.
  Mr. Knapman: Yes, Mr. Moris, but on that occasion, although the point of order was similar, there were 12 amendments grouped together, whereas on this occasion—
  The Chairman: Order. I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the number of amendments was totally irrelevant. There can be two or three; there can be 20 or 40. The number of amendments is irrelevant to the length of time that we debate an issue. My job is to ensure that we have a full and fair debate on the totality of such amendments as are down for selection on the day.
  Without further ado, therefore, we come to amendment No. 13.
  5 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except Title XIV on pages 36 and 37 of Cm 1934)'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following: Amendment No. 28, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(provided that in the implementation of Articles 198(a), (b) and (c) on pages 54 and 55 of Cm 1934 concerning the Committee of the Regions, the 24 members and 24 alternate members of that Committee shall be drawn from elected local government representatives.)'.
  Amendment No. 102, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except Article 198(a) on page 54 of Cm 1934 which relates to the Committee of the Regions)'.
  Amendment No. 103, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except Article 130(a) on page 36 of Cm 1934 which relates to regional policy)'.
  Amendment No. 106, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(provided that implementation of Articles 198(a), (b) and (c) on pages 54 and 55 of Cm 1934 establishing the Committee of the Regions, shall make provision for the direct election of the members and alternate members of that Committee to represent Wales; that those voting in such direct elections shall be local authority elected members, Members representing Welsh constituencies and Members of the European Parliament representing Welsh constituencies; and that there shall be two separate elections the first of which shall provide for representation of the counties of South and Mid Glamorgan and Gwent, and the second for the counties of Gwynedd, Clwyd, Dyfed, Powys and West Glamorgan)'.
  Amendment No. 107, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  506
  '(provided that in the implementation of Articles 198(a), (b) and (c) on pages 54 and 55 of Cm 1934 establishing the Committee of the Regions, the members of that Committee representing Wales and their alternates shall be directly elected by a vote of local authority elected members from Wales, Members elected from Welsh constituencies and Members of the European Parliament representing Welsh constituencies and by none other).'.
  Amendment No. 111, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(provided that on the implementation of Articles 198 (a) (b) and (c) on pages 54 and 55 of Cm 1934 establishing the Committee of the Regions, the members of that Committee shall include the eight members of the European Parliament representing Scottish constituencies).'.
  Amendment No. 156, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 130a'.
  Amendment No. 157, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 130b'.
  Amendment No. 158, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 130c'.
  Amendment No. 187, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 3(j)'.
  Amendment No. 198, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 4b on page II of Cm 1934'.
  Amendment No. 229, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 198e'.
  Amendment No. 248, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 130d'.
  Amendment No. 249, in page I, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 130e'.
  Amendment No. 273, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(provided that in the implementation of Articles 198(a), (b) and (c) on pages 54 and 55 of Cm 1934 concerning the Committee of the Regions, the 24 members and 24 alternate members of that Committee shall be drawn from elected local government representatives, and shall include representatives from each English Standard Planning Region as well as representation from Scotland and Wales.)'.
  Amendment No. 332, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except Article 198a on page 56 of Cm 1934)'.
  Amendment No. 425, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'provided that United Kingdom members of the Committee of the Regions established under article 198 (a) on page 54 of Cm 1934, of whom at least nine shall be representatives of Wales, shall not be nominated until Parliament has had the opportunity of considering a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government to provide for an elected all-Wales forum to elect the representatives of Wales who shall reflect the political balance on the forum, and providing for a monthly report to be made by the representatives to the forum.'.
  Amendment No. 431, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(provided that implementation of Articles 198(a) (b) and (c) on pages 54 and 55 of Cm 1934, establishing the Committee of the Regions, shall make provision for the direct election of the members and alternate members of that Committee to represent Wales and that those voting in such direct elections shall be local authority elected members).'.
  Amendment No. 432, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(provided that in the implementation of Articles 198(a), (b) and (c) on pages 54 and 55 of Cm 1934, establishing the Committee of the Regions, the members of that Committee representing Wales and their alternates shall be directly elected by a vote of local authority elected members from Wales.).'
  Amendment No. 438, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except that articles 198(a), (b) and (c) on pages 54 and 55 of Cm 1934 may only have effect if the nominated members and alternate members of the committee of regions are numerically and politically representative in proportion to the populations of the countries of the United Kingdom, and the Standard Economic Planning Regions of England,'
  Amendment No. 418, in page I, line 9, after 'IV', insert
  '(except Articles 166, 168 and 170 on pages 76 and 77 of Cm 1934).'.
  Amendment No. 56, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
  'but not Article 198 in Title II thereof.
  Amendment No. 62, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
  'but not the Protocol on the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.'.
  Amendment No. 150, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
  'but not Article 170 in Title IV thereof.
  Amendment No. 223, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
  'excluding Article 194 thereof'.
  Amendment No. 226, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
  'but not the Protocol on Economic and Social Cohesion'.
  New clause 26-Committee of the regions—
  'In meeting its obligations under Article 198 (a) on page 54 of Cm 1934 Her Majesty's Government shall ensure that at least eight representatives of the Committee of the regions are from Scotland and that the Secretary of State for Scotland shall select such representatives from a list of candidates submitted to him by any organisation representative of Scottish local authorities.'.
  New clause 41—Regional representation—
  'In discharging its responsibilites under Article 198(a) on page 54 of Cm 1934 the Government shall ensure that those serving on the proposed Committee of the Regions shall reflect, on a proportional basis, votes cast for political parties in Scotland and Wales at the most recently held election for the European Parliament.'.
  New clause 61—Economic and Social Cohesion
  (No. 1)—
  'Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament annually on the implementation of their obligation under Article 130b to conduct their economic policy in such a way as in addition, to attain the objectives set out in Article 130a.'.
  New clause 62—Economic and Social Cohesion (No. 2)——
  'Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament on the European Commission report, provided for in Article 130b, on the progress made towards achieving economic and social cohesion; and no action may be taken by the Government in respect of any accompanying proposals, as provided for in Article 130b, without the Commission report first having been considered by the House of Commons.'.
  New clause 63—Committee of the regions—
  'In meeting its obligations under Article 198(a) on page 54 of Cm 1934 Her Majesty's Government shall ensure that at least eight representatives of the Committee of the regions are from Scotland and that they shall be elected Community, District or Regional councillors, elected by an electoral college or colleges of councillors under a system of proportional representation.'.
  New clause 64—Representation on Committee of Regions—
  'Before Her Majesty's Government discharge its responsibilities under Article 198(a) on page 54 of Cm 1934, Parliament shall have had the opportunity of considering a Bill to provide that at least four of the United Kingdom members nominated to the Committee of the Regions shall be from Wales and shall be directly elected by the people of Wales.'.
  Dr. Cunningham: I say at the very beginning that amendment No. 13 is a probing amendment. It would remove title XIV from the treaty. Title XIV refers to economic and social cohesion in the Community. We are supporters of the principle of policies to move to economic and social cohesion, and it is exactly because of the importance and sensitivity of these issues that we have tabled this amendment to enable a debate to take place.
  508
  I share the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—and others, for that matter—that, regardless of the number of amendments on the amendment paper, there is an important series of issues in this group of amendments. Far from there being any conspiracy—it is difficult for me to conceive of the ability to have a conspiracy with Ministers when we can barely believe a word they tell us about the proceedings on this Bill, and to construct a conspiracy in those circumstances is almost impossible—we are no more enlightened about the Government's intentions on closure motions or 10 o'clock rule motions than is anyone else. In case anyone is in any doubt, however, let me say that if the 10 o'clock motion is moved tonight we shall oppose it exactly because we believe that the House as a whole will want a significant amount of time to discuss the cohesion fund and the Committee of the Regions, which is the subject of amendment No. 28.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I will give way in a moment. This amendment, also tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, refers to chapter 4 of the treaty which establishes the Committee of the Regions. It is to amendment No. 28 that I shall address myself in the course of what I hope will be a relatively brief contribution.
  Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to learn that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) does not know when the Government are going to have their procedural motions, particularly as we all know that the Liberal party does know. The hon. Gentleman has said that he is in favour of the cohesion fund. Does he realise that we pay for it but that other people get the money?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, of course 1 realise that simple fact, but perhaps I can observe in response to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that if the Government he wholeheartedly supports in other policies continue to wreck the British economy in the way that they are currently doing, Britain will soon be able to benefit from the provisions of the cohesion fund. Indeed, in a technical sense, sad to say, because of high levels of unemployment in Merseyside, Tyneside and elsewhere, some regions or sub-regions of Britain would already qualify for benefit from the provisions of the fund.
  I want to discuss the important principle set out in amendment No. 28, referring to chapter 4 of the treaty and the Committee of the Regions. Articles 198a, 198b and 198c set out the duties of the committee and its relationship to the Council of Ministers and to the Commission. The Maastricht treaty recognises in two key ways the increasing role for the regions of the Community: first, the establishment of this important committee, and, secondly, the subsidiarity principle included in the treaty. Subsidiarity, however, is the subject of a later debate in our proceedings.
  It is a general observation and widely recognised throughout the European Community that decentralisation, devolution, the sharing of power and decision-taking have worked well for almost all the major countries of the Community and for their economies. Only in Britain has there been a blind drive towards greater and greater centralisation of decision-taking in the past decade or more. Only in Britain have we had a Government who, far from wanting to devolve power and share decision-taking,

  509
  have given Ministers more and more central and authoritarian powers, including powers over democratically elected local government. Only in Britain have we had a Government who, by Act of Parliament, have struck out what were existing important elected authorities such as the Greater London Council and the metropolitan authorities of England. Only in Britain do we have a capital city with no authority elected to represent its citizens and their views—and we see daily the damage that this has done to the interests of the city and people of London.
  In Spain, autonomous provinces with varying powers have been an engine of Spain's economic growth. In France, economic revival has coincided with the abandonment of the traditional French attitude to central control. In Germany, the Lander have long been recognised as key ingredients of German success. In Belgium and elsewhere, devolved power operates beneficially and successfully in economic and social policy. In relation to other countries and the Committee of the Regions, there have been varying representations. Other countries have taken varying views, but only in Britain has there been the suggestion that the Committee of the Regions may perhaps comprise non-elected, nonrepresentative ministerial appointees. Whatever the devolved arrangements, whatever the constitutional form, in all the other countries of the Community the principle, at least, has been established and accepted that nominations to the Committee of the Regions will be from some level of elected representatives.
  We believe that it is very important that the same principle should apply for Scotland, for Wales and for England and that the same principle should apply for Northern Ireland, too.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Member suggesting that Derek Hatton, for example, would be more capable of representing Liverpool than, say, Bishop Sheppard or Archbishop Worlock?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Lady could not have been listening carefully. I was talking about elected representatives. It is quite some time since Mr. Hatton enjoyed the status of elected representative. If the hon. Lady wishes to get into that kind of political approach to the debate today, she had better look a little closer to home and direct her attention to the stench which has been hanging around the Tory administration in the City of Westminster for a very long time indeed. She is in no position to make allegations about Labour when there are so many Tory authorities that I could name when it comes to matters of that kind.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: Is my hon. Friend aware that West Wiltshire district council, a Tory-controlled council, has been involved in such corruption that the police have now been called in and Tory councillors have had to resign their seats because of the appalling administration of that particular Conservative council?
  The Chairman: Order. That is one from both sides. I do not think that the Committee ought to get into local government difficulties now.
  Dr. Cunningham: We had better decide to play a draw, Mr. Morris; otherwise, this could be an extended debate.
  510
  Sadly, there are examples in all political parties of the kind that the hon. Lady wrongfully and unhelpfully introduced. That subject was not one that I intended to touch on.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Many of us believe that it is paramount that representatives are not nominated by central Government. As to the United Kingdom's representatives, has the Labour party come to a view as to how many of them should be allocated to the nations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
  Dr. Cunningham: We have not come to a view, but some of our representatives in local government have; in fact, I believe that they take several views—certainly more than one.
  Today, we want to establish the agreement of the Committee to the principle that I described. We can discuss the details of allocation later. I have no doubt that those discussions may be heated within parties as well as between parties. I do not disguise that reality for a moment. The purpose of the amendment is to persuade the Government—I believe that all other parties in the Committee have done this—to accept the principle that the amendment seeks to establish.
  Since the original signing of the treaty, Ministers have made some very odd statements. At one point, it seemed that the Secretary of State for Wales intended to appoint himself to the committee.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: What a good idea.
  Dr. Cunningham: That is a matter of opinion—as ever, when the Minister of State speaks.
  If the Secretary of State were to represent the United Kingdom in the Council of Ministers—as he is entitled to do, as a Minister—he should not be entitled also to take a place on the Committee of the Regions. That would be contrary to the spirit and the letter of the treaty.
  Mr. Giles Radice: Can my hon. Friend say whether any other country is considering nominating a Minister to represent one of its regions?
  Dr. Cunningham: As of now, we know of no such example. I am not saying that another member state may not make such a proposal, but we think it unlikely. All the indications from those countries which have declared their intentions rule out the appointment of national Ministers to the committee.
  The Government again seem to have set off on the wrong road, as they so often do. It may be that they have drawn back from their earlier position and that common sense and persuasive argument have prevailed. There is always a first time, even with a Government as pig-headed and obstinate as the present Government. We hope that is the case. The Government, in the form not only of the Secretary of State for Wales but of the Secretary of State for Scotland, have made statements about Ministers putting their nominees on the Committee of the Regions. We reject that approach because, I repeat, it is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the treaty. We hope that the Minister of State will be able to assure the Committee that the Government have had second thoughts, and we hope even more strongly that he will indicate that they are prepared to accept our amendment.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his argument is even more true of Northern Ireland as not one Minister in the Northern

  511
  Ireland Office was elected by any Northern Ireland constituency, so such an appointment to the Committee of the Regions would in no way be representative of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Dr. Cunningham: I accept absolutely the hon. Gentleman's point. I intended to make the same point about the Secretary of State for Wales, who has no personal mandate in Wales—certainly his party does not have one. The Secretary of State for Scotland has a personal mandate, but he cannot claim that his party has a mandate in Scotland. To make such appointments would fly in the face of the wishes and decisions of the electorates of Northern Ireland, the Principality, and Scotland. That is why we reject the approach that the Government are apparently taking to the Committee.
  5.15 pm
  Last week, I read with amusement a statement which was repeated at Prime Minister's Question Time today —that the Government are to have a bonfire of controls. They have already had at least two bonfires that I can recall during their tenure of office, so where are the other controls to come from? They will come from the legislation that the Government have heaped on our country over the years. If Ministers intend to follow that course of action, which is usually just a smokescreen to hide other difficulties—in this case, the disastrous state of the economy—I encourage them to apply the same bonfire principle to controls on local government as to controls on industry.
  No aspect of our national life has been more subject to a tidal wave of legislation and controls than local government the length and breadth of our country. It has suffered 60 Acts of Parliament which have hedged around and circumscribed local authorities with more and more authoritarianism. The Community and local government associations in Britain, regardless of political control, are almost unanimously in favour of accepting the principle embodied in the amendment applying to the Committee of the Regions—that it should be made up of members of elected local authorities.
  Those in favour of that principle include the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, the Consultative Council of Regional and Local Authorities in Europe, and the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe—which is a Council of Europe body. Britain will be in an anomalous situation if Ministers do not accept our amendment.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend's powerful case is, I am sure, strongly supported by right hon. and hon. Members from the regions. If the Government do not accept the amendment, does my hon. Friend intend to press it to a Division?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Poor man.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Lady is apparently amused. I do not know whether she is surprised or astonished, but we have every intention of pressing the amendment to a Division. I dare say that the smile will be wiped off the hon. Lady's face because we expect that, if the Government do not accept the amendment, a great number of hon.
  512
  Members from minority parties will vote with us and against the Government. For someone who is a self-professed, pro-European, and anxious to get to Europe, the hon. Lady displays a disarmingly candid view —one that is in opposition to that which is widely shared in the Community.
  Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend might care to ask whether the so-called pro-Maastricht Conservative Members will support this important part of the Maastricht treaty with their votes tonight.
  Dr. Cunningham: We shall not be voting on the substance of the amendment tonight, but the hon. Members to whom my hon. Friend refers could join us in opposing the motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule, thus ensuring the widest possible debate on this important nexus of issues.
  Local government in Britain has made various proposals. This relates to the point made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am not here to adjudicate between those detailed submissions, but I know that the Government have received one such submission on behalf of the local authorities, to which, so far as I am aware, they have made no response—certainly no public response.
  We should value the regional and local democratic mandate of those who are to comprise the committee. We should recognise their knowledge and expertise in regional and local government. We should acknowledge that local authorities of all political persuasions have a duty to implement European Community directives, and to monitor and supervise other aspects of European Community decisions. To use a well-worn if not hackneyed phrase, locally elected members are at the sharp end of the implementation of the overwhelming majority of European Community directives and other decisions in their own communities and localities. They therefore have a firm grasp of the implications of European Community legislation and EC decisions generally—for instance, in regard to the environment—and will bring a powerful voice to deliberations on the Community's future, including the nature and content of its legislation.
  The Committee of the Regions is intended to introduce such a new dimension to the Community's affairs, and it is a very welcome aspect of the treaty. Acceptance of the amendment would mean that the House and the Government had agreed the principle that I have sought to highlight. I repeat that discussions on the allocation of places between Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland could subsequently take place.
  I commend the amendment to the Committee.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I hope that it will be convenient if I make some opening remarks at this stage. I dare say that the debate will run for a number of hours, and, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris, I shall try to answer the points that have been raised in the intervening time.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—as, I am sure, are other hon. Members —for telling the Committee that he does not intend to press amendment No. 13 to a Division. That has yet again given us an opportunity to discuss not only the whole subject of cohesion, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, but the Committee of the Regions. I hope that it

  513
  is in order for me to make a few remarks about amendment No. 13, although the hon. Gentleman did not refer to it. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee may wish to touch on it.
  The Committee will probably recall that the Community's commitment to assist the less-developed regions dates back to 1975, and the creation of the European regional development fund. The specific objective of reducing economic disparities between regions of the Community—which, in Eurospeak, is known as "economic and social cohesion"—first appeared in the treaty with the Single European Act 1986, which added five new articles to the treaty of Rome: articles I 30a to 130e. Those articles specified that the main instruments of cohesion would be the structural funds and the European investment bank.
  The Maastricht treaty seeks to build on the articles in the Single European Act, first, by stating that European Community policies and actions must take cohesion into account—although that is not a sweeping provision designed to ensure that all EC actions are subordinated to the objective of cohesion: other treaty provisions must be taken in their context. The cohesion fund legislation must be agreed unanimously by member states, after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament.
  Secondly, the Maastricht treaty allows the Commission to propose specific actions outside the funds if necessary, although such proposals would have to be agreed on their merits by the Council, again by unanimity. There is no question of the United Kingdom, or indeed any other Government, being forced to accept proposals that they find unacceptable.
  Thirdly, the treaty provides for the establishment, by the end of 1993-again, by unanimity in the Council—of a cohesion fund, which will seek to target assistance on the four poorest member states, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece, for projects relating to environment and trans-European networks. Finally, it is provided in the cohesion protocol annexed to the treaty that assistance from the cohesion fund will be made available only to member states which have a per capita income less than 90 per cent. of the Community average, and which are implementing sound macro-economic policies designed to attain the targets agreed in their convergence programmes with the Community.
  I hope that the Committee will agree that the Maastricht treaty does indeed strengthen and improve the existing cohesion articles in the original treaty—above all, by targeting the Community's cohesion effort where it is most needed.
  The Committee will not need reminding that the Maastricht treaty says nothing about the level of cohesion spending; that was for decision in the future financing review, which we concluded at the Edinburgh European Council meeting in December. Hon. Members will recall that the overall settlement agreed at Edinburgh was rather restrictive, raising the own-resources ceiling by less than half the increase originally asked for by the Commission. Despite that, the increases in cohesion spending were in our view generous, reflecting the new emphasis that the Community is placing on this objective.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend has said, effectively, that we have a lock on it, because it depends on unanimity, and we can be very careful about how the fund is established and what it is spent on. I remind him that
  514
  article 130a states that the aim of economic and social cohesion is, as he said, to reduce disparities. If we ratify this particular part of the treaty, we shall commit ourselves to attaining the objectives set out in article 130a, and the Community's policies and actions must follow that. We are actually committing ourselves, if we accept this, to reducing disparities through a cohesion fund which will obviously take up a lot of money.
  My right hon. Friend will be aware that the draft regulation put out by the Commission, on behalf of the Commission, wants the Commission to control the funds without any further intervention from the Council. May I suggest that we would be better off without the cohesion fund? It will cost our taxpayers money, and provide nothing for them. I suggest that my right hon. Friend's Conservative colleagues would do well to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not agree. Cohesion is one of the instruments available to the Community in the pursuit of its objectives, and cohesion is one of the Community's objectives. I remind my hon. Friend, however, that the Maastricht treaty is littered with new references to the importance of markets and sound economic policies. My hon. Friend has asked what Britain will get out of the arrangement. I am sure that he needs no reminding that, with the single market now available to us, we in Britain have the good fortune of having more major international and transnational companies than any other country in the Community. Our international insurance and chemical companies are moving into European markets on a much larger scale than any other country in the Community, which is proving enormously beneficial to the United Kingdom. It is part of the whole single market package.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the change to the cohesion fund made in the Maastricht treaty is the inclusion of rural areas? It is an extremely good thing, and would it not be rather strange if the Opposition wanted to delete rural areas from the cohesion fund package merely because they might not obtain many votes there?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree, but I must say that the hon. Member for Copeland has made it clear that he does not intend to press the amendment so we cannot accuse the Opposition of wishing to remove rural areas from the fund. They are providing an opportunity for us to debate these matters.
  Mr. Peter Shore:rose—
  Mr. John D. Taylor:rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). One of the reasons I want to be brief is that a number of hon. Members from Northern Ireland and other parts of the country will want to catch your eye as early as possible, Mr. Lofthouse. I want to ensure that I do not detain the Committee for too long so that they may do so.
  Mr. Shore: I am very much in favour of regional funds, provided that they are spent and targeted sensibly. Can the Minister explain why the criterion for the new cohesion fund was a percentage of the Community's average GDP

  515
  instead of the fund targeting particular regions which fell below the 90 per cent. threshold? Surely that would have been a more intelligent way to proceed. I should be grateful for the Minister's explanation of why the national measure was adopted.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The Community has two instruments for that purpose. One is the structural funds which are specially aimed at regions and from which the United Kingdom benefits. The new cohesion fund relates to per capita income, meaning that it is devoted specifically to the four poorest countries in the Community. It was part of the bargain struck at Maastricht that the funds should be devoted—[Interruption.] Yes, it was a bargain. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will be aware that sensible bargains, arrived at by consensus between grown-up people, happen to be part of the profession to which she and I belong. That is what we do as politicians. I do not think that any Government in the Community, whether those at the top or bottom of the per capita income scale, need to apologise for arriving at sensible bargains between nation states.
  Mr. John D. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I must make progress. May I finish this point?
  I repeat that the four poorest member states in the Community argue with some fairness that certain member states, largely those in the north of Europe—we are an example of this—which have highly developed world-beating multinational companies, are taking enormous advantage of the single market by investing in their countries and by buying into the insurance, food and chemical industries in their countries. The trans-European networks, for example, which seek to improve communications—in Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal in the case of the cohesion fund—are of enormous benefit to countries that are fortunate enough to have such enterprises. Therefore, the bargains work both ways. It is not a crude case, as some hon. Members have implied, of British taxpayers pouring money into roads in Greece with no benefit to Britain. That is a travesty of reality.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister was right to express some satisfaction at the outcome of the Edinburgh summit where, as he said, the increase in the budget ceiling was not as great as had originally been requested. It was only about half of that. However, will he define more clearly how much of that increase is being allocated to the cohesion fund as it has not been made very clear?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I think I am right in saying—although if I am lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Lofthouse, I can correct this if necessary—that the cohesion fund which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, applies only to the four poorest countries is likely in 1993 to represent about 7 per cent. of the total cohesion effort. That would include the regional funds in which he is especially interested. By 1999 the total cohesion effort, including the structural funds, will represent about 8.7 per cent. of the total spent.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson rose—
  Sir Russell Johnston rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way to both hon. Members but then I must make some progress.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I know that he wants to make progress. He is perfectly correct to check the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—and the more he does so the better in my view—but does he agree that it is not merely a question of Britain deriving commercial advantage from the cohesion and structural funds? We are also accepting the principle that all in the Community have some responsibility for the deprived areas, wherever they may be.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I very much agree. I should have said that about the structural funds in my reply to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor): For last year the United Kingdom will receive about £1 billion from the structural funds. Northern Ireland is a substantial and wholly proper beneficiary of that money.
  Mr. Mandelson: I do not want to disappoint some of my hon. Friends but I also want to express support for an important principle of the cohesion fund—that of solidarity with countries poorer than us. The basis of the deal that the right hon. Gentleman described includes both funds. Under the Delors 2 proposals there is to be an increase in the structural funds in support of objective 2 regions, those which have old industries which need restructuring. That support, including some for the north of England, is proposed to increase by two thirds by 1997. Will the British Government support those proposals, which are central to the operation of the structural fund and the deal struck between Governments?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, of course, but we are now entering the stage where member states bid for the structural funds. We are at the moment in the process of putting together the bids that we shall be making for the various regions. That will take place this year. Naturally, the British Government intend that the regions in Britain which now benefit from a particular status will continue to do so, and we shall be trying to achieve a better status for some areas—for example, the highlands and islands.
  Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I wish to make progress so that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is able to speak later. I want to talk about the Committee of the Regions on which the hon. Member for Copeland concentrated.
  The Government welcome the establishment of the Committee of the Regions. There is a wide range of Community policies which attract regional and local interest, either directly or indirectly. We therefore think it absolutely right that there should be an input into the Community's decision-making process from the regions.
  The treaty establishes that the Committee of the Regions will have an advisory status. It must be consulted on new proposals on matters such as education, culture, public health, cohesion and trans-European networks. It may also be consulted in any other instance which is considered appropriate or—this is important, too—it may issue an opinion on its own authority where regional interests are involved.
  The treaty provides that the committee will be made up of representatives of regional and local bodies appointed

  517
  to serve for four years. The treaty makes it clear that it is for the Governments of member states to nominate their national candidates to the committee. It is left to the member states to decide how their seats should be allocated between their regions and what representatives should he nominated. The amendment would commit the Government to ensure that all United Kingdom nominees to the Committee of the Regions will be elected local government representatives.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I represent the part of the north-west that is very far from the centre. We would be most apprehensive if the major part of representation on such a regional body were to come, as it inevitably would, from Liverpool and Manchester. We would not trust our fate in their hands.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend makes a point that I shall seek to develop in a moment.
  There are many reasons why I shall invite the Committee to reject the amendment. Among those reasons is that the hon. Member for Copeland implied that it was within the spirit of the treaty that every representative should be an elected local government representative and that the United Kingdom would in some way be failing in its duty and not living up to the spirit of the treaty if every member were not an elected member.
  So far, two countries have nominated their candidates for the committee—Greece and the Netherlands—and they are good examples because they are two completely different countries. One is a southern Mediterranean cohesion country and the other is a northern, rather rich, sophisticated country. The Greeks have nominated eight elected mayors and four non-elected regional secretaries, and five elected and seven non-elected representatives is what the Netherlands has done. I make that point because I do not think that it is necessary that there be an obligation on any Government to ensure that all the nominees are from local government.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Let me finish developing this point and I shall give way.
  We have 24 seats and 24 alternates. In order properly to reflect and represent all the various subtle interests, not just local government interests—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is the right Iron. Gentleman giving way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am taking careful note. If I may develop my point, I shall then give way.
  There are a range of national, regional and cultural interests of some importance and consequence that would not necessarily be adequately represented if we chose to go down the rather crude route that the hon. Member for Copeland is suggesting—a route which, so far, every member state that has chosen its members has not chosen to go down.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Minister is giving a completely different interpretation to the meaning of the treaty from that which Mr. Delors gave. In a letter in December, on behalf of the Commission, he said:
  "The Commission is of the opinion that, considering the functions attributed to the Committee of the Regions, the Committee should consist of elected representatives."
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Delors is not a party to the treaty. It is a treaty between member states. He is perfectly entitled to his opinion, and it is not an unimportant opinion. So far, two member states, not noted for their lack of solidarity or for their lack of commitment to the Community, have decided not to go down the route that the hon. Gentleman is recommending.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Once again, does it not appear that we have a clash between what the Government claim to be the intention of the Committee of the Regions in having those clauses in the treaty and what the real architects of the European union conceived? We are building yet another treaty basis for Brussels to have direct access, bypassing national Parliaments, just as happened with citizenship and other bits of the treaty.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Garel-Jones: No, Sir.
  Ms. Joyce Quin: Even if the Minister is not prepared to say exactly what the representations should be from the United Kingdom, will he at least concede the principle that in the case of Scotland, Wales or the northern region of England, where a clear majority voted against the Government, representatives will reflect the political majority and not just be nominees from the Government's ranks?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall refer to that point in a minute.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: May I be allowed to answer the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin).
  I am trying to establish that there is no obligation whatever on the United Kingdom Government, or indeed on any other Government, to fulfil what is set out in the amendment, that is that all members should automatically be elected members of a local authority. Not only is there no obligation to that but no member state that has so far made its nominations to the Committee of the Regions has done so. Two countries have made their nominations, and not one of them has so far nominated only elected local government people.
  Mr. George Robertson: The Minister tells the Committee that only Greece and the Netherlands have made a nomination. On 2 December, the Bundestag agreed to allocate at least three seats of its delegation to local authorities, all others to go to the Lander, therefore all elected representatives from Germany. The Danish Government have now made their nominations by agreement with the Association of Local and County Authorities and the city of Copenhagen, with four each of the counties and the municipalities and one of the city of Copenhagen. In Luxembourg, all nominees are to be elected members of local authorities. What is the position?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am simply telling the Committee that, so far, two member states have nominated—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is telling me that the Lander will have certain nominations in respect of the Committee of the Regions. Is the hon. Gentleman aware who they will nominate? Perhaps he had better wait. Let us wait and see whom they nominate. It is perfectly within the bounds of possibility

  519
  that a Land in the Federal Republic might decide to send one of their Ministers to the Committee of the Regions or to nominate someone else. The statement that I have made to the Committee remains the case.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I am not going to give way. Two member states have nominated their members to the Committee of the Regions, and those member states have not nominated exclusively democratically elected people. That is a statement of fact.
  Mr. George Robertson: That is all slightly disingenuous. We know that the Minister is dancing on a fine point. The United Kingdom is in the process of ratifying the treaty and is the second to last country to do so. Clearly, no one will make final decisions about the nominees and the individuals who will sit on a committee which has not yet been established under a treaty which has not yet been ratified or implemented.
  The Minister should address the point that EC countries, other than the two which he has mentioned, have clearly set out the principle which they will follow when they make their nominations. Why is the Minister dodging the issue by concentrating on two countries and not on the other three countries which I mentioned earlier?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Let me spell it out in capital letters. I am not prepared to commit Her Majesty's Government to a guarantee that the 24 members appointed to the Committee of the Regions will be elected local government councillors. Is that clear enough for the hon. Member for Hamilton. Does he understand it?
  Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend but I will give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The democratic principle underpinning the nominations of people to the Committee of the Regions is critical to all of us so we want proportionality and elected accountability. The Minister said that he will not commit the Government to ensuring that all the United Kingdom nominees will be local councillors. Will a proportion of the nominees be local councillors?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The Government will listen carefully to representations from political parties, local government and other regional interests in the United Kingdom before coming to their decision. We will listen carefully and constructively. The point which I am trying to make in the debate—which is a fair one—is that we do not want to tie ourselves to having only locally-elected councillors, as the amendment seeks to do. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware of the defects which such a system could impart to Britain's representatives on what may turn out to be an important Community institution in the future.
  Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend is right to say that one cannot specify who will be on the committee. After all, the regional development fund has been going since 1973, and experience has shown that
  520
  it is important to get people with some expertise, whether they are politicians or engineers. We must get people who know about road transport and shipping so that we can tie together the whole regional planning infrastructure.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend makes an important point and it is one of the many considerations which the Government will have to take into account when they consider the matter.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make a little more progress. I intervened early because I want to listen to the whole debate for a good reason: I expect that a number of hon. Members from different regions in the United Kingdom who represent different interests in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will make important points. The Government intend to listen carefully to those points.
  It is not wise for the Committee to accept the amendment. I do not accept that the amendment will lead the Committee to produce a system of nomination which will do adequate justice to the interests of all the regions in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Radice: Does the Minister think that the majority of members on the Committee of the Regions should be elected local government representatives?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I think that I have already answered that question.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As one who represents a rural area, I hope that, for example, the President of the National Farmers Union will be a welcome member of the regional committee.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government must listen to such representations. I give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and then I must bring my remarks to a conclusion.
  Mr. Salmond: It is reasonable for the Minister to say that he is not happy with the amendment. However, it is unreasonable for him not to give the Committee an indication of the Government's thinking on who should be nominated. It will be surprising if the Committee makes progress on this part of the Bill before the Minister gives us some illustration of that point.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: As I have said, I expect the debate to run for some time. I intend to listen to most, if not all, of the debate and to hear the points which undoubtedly hon. Labour Members will make.
  Two considerations underlie the debate: first, I am not convinced that it will be wise to commit the United Kingdom to nominating only elected councillors to the Committee of the Regions and, secondly, the proposed distribution of numbers will not have escaped the notice of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
  There will be strong competing claims on a proportional basis, and a substantial number of the committee members should go to England. Most English hon. Members accept that there must be—and it is right that there should be—some sort of weighting towards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is also a matter for careful consideration. I have detained the Committee for long enough, and I will now allow hon. Members to make their speeches.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I have followed the debate with great interest. Perhaps we should start by asking ourselves what function the Committee of the Regions will play. What part will the committee play in the structure and development of the treaty? As the Minister and others have said, the implication and assumption is that the role of the Committee of the Regions will be an important buttress of the decentralising tendency.
  One claim is that the treaty represents a fundamental arrest of the movement towards the centralising process—subsidiarity and the development of alternative pillars to the inter-governmental processes. On top of that, it is considered that the Committee of the Regions is a practical gesture, if not a symbol, in favour of decentralisation.
  The trouble with the treaty is that its structure is so inherently unstable that it can be interpreted in two contradictory ways. The measures can be interpreted as acting as a decentralising force and therefore arresting what previously seemed to be the development towards a centralised Europe. Evidence which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs received from many expert witnesses shows that the treaty is equally capable of being interpreted as a centralising force.
  The role of the treaty in not only monetary union, but the other institutions being created will result in a more centralised union or centralised European federal state, rather than a decentralised union. In that context, the Committee of the Regions would have a different function and have a different connotation.
  Earlier, I think that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) made the point that, if the role of the Committee of the Regions is developed, the committee could become part of a triad—the Commission, the European union, and the Committee of the Regions —acting jointly to erode, subvert or go round national Governments, national Parliaments and the European Council. There is no doubt that the Commission had a different structure at heart in many of its preparatory documents which led to the Maastricht treaty. The Commission did not get its way, and we should be thankful for that.
  The gist and drive behind the Commissioners' ideas of what Maastricht should eventually lead to was a concept of a centralised executive Commission working in close harmony with the European Parliament but at the same time breaking what it saw as the obstacle to a federal European union structure—national Parliaments and national Governments represented by the European Council. If the Maastricht route also makes possible that alternative strategy, we must certainly ask ourselves about the function and role of the Committee of the Regions.
  My fundamental objection to the treaty is not that one can be altogether dogmatic about where Maastricht will lead us but that it is capable of taking us to a different destination from the one which is often presented to us by the Government. They suggest that it is leading us to a stage at which we shall have arrested the ever more powerful centralising tendency of the European union and European Community.
  6 pm
  Mr. Hoon: I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Maastricht treaty. He has his view, and I have a rather different one. However, I should be interested to know where he sees any evidence in chapter 4, which establishes the Committee of the Regions, for the centralising tendency to which he refers.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend is correct: it is neutral. That is my point. The question is not so much what is written into the provisions—I shall make the point later that the provisions which establish the Committee of the Regions are rather scrappy—as what is the fundamental drift, structural aim and objective of not only Maastricht but the review conference in 1996. Is it to take further the new bridgeheads which have been established? After 1996, will the alternative scenario be developed and created? I do not suggest that it will happen, but one must interpret a perfectly neutral article and decide which way Maastricht is leading us.
  Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend's argument is a persuasive one. We can all recall the vision of a Europe of the regions, as distinct from a Europe of nation states, of which some people on the European continent and especially in the Commission have always been in favour. But in the context of regional policy, surely the point is that a double process is taking place. One is the transfer of regional policy decision-making and funds to the European Commission. That is a centralising process. The other is the phasing out, control and diminution of national regional policy. It is, indeed, a transfer of power and a centralising process.
  Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend raises some fundamental central points. One of the sadnesses is that we have been forced to debate a huge portmanteau of amendments on regional and cohesion funds and the appointment of a separate institution, a Committee of the Regions.
  If one is to devise a process of convergence which will lead to monetary union by any other method than the monetarist one—which is in my view at the heart of the treaty—the development of regional and cohesion funds is vital. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said in an earlier debate, very large funds are necessary to develop any form of cohesion within a meaningful time scale.
  The very nature of accumulating such huge funds is itself a centralising process. Funds of that size will have to be administered, organised and distributed from the centre. If one is to achieve convergence and monetary union by the socially and economically acceptable route of redistributing large funds, a European Government is necessary to do it.
  It is a perfectly reasonable proposition, but nevertheless the Government pretend that it is not one which is presented to us in the Maastricht treaty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, such a scenario might be proposed in 1996. We are entitled to ask whether the Committee of the Regions will be part and parcel of a genuine process of decentralisation, of the arresting process which others claim is socially acceptable and of the creation of subsidiarity and the intergovernmental pillars of the

  523
  treaty. Or is it possible that the other route of a Europe of the regions and a growingly centralised European executive will be pursued?
  I am exercising a neutral view, but it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the processes that are likely to flow from Maastricht. It is as reasonable as the Government's interpretation. They suggest that the Maastricht treaty is essentially a decentralising measure.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that a reasonable definition of subsidiarity does not conflict with the paradox which is apparently laid before us? A reasonable definition is that government should occur at the lowest level at which it can be effective. On some matters, it can be effective only at a transnational level. Examples include a single currency and environmental legislation. Other forms of government can be far more effective at a much lower level. So that apparent paradox is not in fact contradictory.
  Mr. Rowlands: No, I do not believe it is. My hon. Friend rightly says that subsidiarity is a two-way process. Just as much as it could be a decentralising process, it could be the confirmation of a large movement of power from local or decentralised structures to the centre.
  I do not wish to dwell on subsidiarity, Mr. Lofthouse, because we shall have a separate debate on it. I draw the attention of the Committee to the voluminous evidence on subsidiarity which we took in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I warn any of my hon. Friends or any hon. Members who think that they have cast-iron guarantees about the success of subsidiarity—I have been as diligent as possible in going through the evidence—not to buy a simplistic view of it or its potential effectiveness.
  My proposition is simple. It is possible to interpret the potential role of a future Committee of the Regions in the context of a rather different European structure from that which is presented to us by Ministers and some of those who want to pretend that Maastricht does not contain at least the potential for centralisation and a larger European executive.
  The Maastricht treaty could be a first step on the road to a Europe of the regions. The irony about that for me as a Welshman is that, if the House and the British people decided that they wanted to turn Westminster into a glorified Lander, that might be their decision. We would then have a most powerful and overwhelming case to establish our own Länd, in the form of an elected assembly for Wales. I believe that we have a case for such an assembly now, but as Maastricht could lead towards the transformation of Westminster into a glorified Länd, I cannot see why I should come to Westminster. I should do far better trying to represent my communities in a Welsh elected assembly.
  I have been a keen supporter of a Welsh elected assembly. Regional assemblies are the alternative scenario for future constitutional development. Not one Minister or Member of Parliament who campaigns for the treaty claims that that is the destination to which Masticate might eventually lead. If they were honest and accepted that that was a perfectly acceptable option, I as a Welshman could happily accept the joy and privilege of
  524
  representing my communities in a Welsh elected assembly. Its powers and responsibilities would be on a par with a glorified Westminster Länd.
  Is that the way in which the Government and the British people want to go? They have not to date expressed their views in those terms, but the potential is there, offered by Maastricht, and with that potential comes the possibility of a major new powerful European executive.
  That is why the members of nationalist parties in this Parliament have embraced the concept of Europe and have been voting with the Government on most of the treaty. They believe that the potential exists here to achieve their goal. I think I see some of them indicating assent at that. That scenario has not been presented to us. In other words, they are voting for a model even though the Government are pretending that the model does not exist or is not potentially possible under the Maastricht treaty.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the cohesion funds are designed to reduce disparities between the levels of development of various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured areas, including rural areas. Does he accept that all areas of this country, whether or not represented by those with separatist tendencies, are already losing out in the EC in vital and fundamental industries such as textiles and paper and board, whereas countries such as Portugal and Spain are obtaining huge additional funds from the Community, resulting in our losing jobs in Scotland, Wales and virtually every region of the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that that is just a sample of what is likely to happen if we ratify Maastricht?
  Mr. Rowlands: I was coming to that very subject, which is the potential—or perhaps the lack of it—resulting from the role of the Committee of the Regions. What are we buying? We are told that, at least to start with, the committee will be potentially an important expression of the voice of the regions—in the case of the area I represent, the national regions.
  I have searched studiously through the treaty, because the article with which we are dealing does not specify the duties of the Committee of the Regions. We are told that its duties are given in the treaty, but it is difficult to work out what they will be. For example, the committee could play an invaluable role if, as some witnesses who gave evidence before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs suggested, it will be the champion voice for greater structural, regional and cohesion funds to be directed to poorer regions and nations on the periphery of the new European union.
  If that were to be the function of the Committee of the Regions, I could support it, but it is difficult to discover a meaningful definition of the powers, responsibilities and duties that it will have. I would be happier if the treaty spelled out its role, albeit consultative. After all, we are speaking only of an advisory body. We may argue about who should be on it, but we would feel happier if the treaty showed a clearly defined role for it, perhaps saying that it must be advised on all issues relating to the cohesion fund, the structural fund and various other funds in a way that might lead to a redistribution of wealth in the Community.
  We need such a body, because our only voice in Brussels now is the Secretary of State for Wales, and by any standard, his has been a poor voice, which has delivered remarkably little in terms of regional and

  525
  structural support to the communities that I represent. He has even failed to make sure that we are a part of the operation. I remind the Committee that no part of the areas I represent will get a penny from the cohesion fund.
  6.15 pm
  It has been suggested that, as good socialists, we should support the poorest. Mid Glamorgan's GDP is only 70 per cent. of the average of that of the United Kingdom. By any calculation of GDP per capita—by any formula; most formulae are fixed to deliver the results that are wanted —whether purchasing power, parity or rates of exchange, Mid Glamorgan and the communities I represent qualify as much as Spain, Greece and, I am sorry to say, Ireland. But there is no suggestion that cohesion fund money should come to my communities.
  The Minister talked about targeting. We are talking about a poorly targeted cohesion fund, because it has been crudely decided that the money shall go to four of the Twelve. The funds will not go to regions, areas or communities in the Community. They will go to four member states, irrespective of whether there are in those states areas much wealthier than any of the communities I represent.
  Mr John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Maastricht is inconsistent and contradicts itself, in that, although it stresses the importance of regions, the cohesion fund dismisses entirely the importance of regions and sticks strictly to the importance of national states?
  Mr. Rowlands: That is the point that I am making. The Minister agreed, frankly, that what had occurred was a bargain. It was a fix. It was a way to achieve the support of four of the Twelve—for a variety of other developments within the concept of Maastricht—and was therefore a way to buy support. The cohesion fund is not based on any rigorous assessment of need.
  We talk much about cohesion and convergence. My community is at present suffering not from convergence but from divergence, even within the United Kingdom economy. As I say, Mid Glamorgan has only 70 per cent. of the United Kingdom's average GDP. That has come about as a result of Conservative policies. That position has not been addressed or redressed by the Secretary of State for Wales campaigning for the redistribution of funds in the EC on behalf of communities such as mine, which, by any criteria, qualify for cohesion and other types of regional funding.
  Mr. Marlow: I take fully the hon. Gentleman's point that the money is targeted purely at four countries—Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal. It is not targeted where the need exists or to rural areas but to those four countries. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Commission wants to manage the fund itself, in alliance with those four countries. So effectively the Commission wants the money not to overcome the problems of poverty in parts of the Community; it wants four client states that will agree in future with its agenda.
  Mr. Rowlands: I would not push the conspiratorial view that far, although I believe that a deal, a fix, has occurred. It was an arrangement.
  We are told that the cohesion fund is a special new fund to be devoted to those four countries, and a formula has been devised to make the arrangement look rational. That means that we must direct our attention next to the
  526
  structural fund because that is where the larger proportion of the money lies. Hence, on behalf of a community with a GDP per capita in the band of the four cohesion fund countries, I do just that and turn to the structural fund.
  On doing so, I discover that the first objective, relating to the largest part of the fund—it was about four fifths of the total; I am having difficulty working out whether Edinburgh shifted the proportion somewhat—names the only qualifying community in the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland.
  Mid Glamorgans's GDP is lower than that of Northern Ireland. It is saddening when one hears the self-deluding statements of the Secretary of State for Wales telling us that our economy has been transformed. The transformation of the south Wales economy has meant that Mid Glamorgan, in GDP terms, is in a lower state, I am sorry to say in the presence of Northern Ireland Members, than that of Northern Ireland. That is the marvellous miracle of transformation that the Secretary of State and his predecessor have wrought with his valleys initiative. That is the truth about our economy currently, and we still do not qualify for objective 1 funding. Not only are we outside cohesion funding; we are also outside objective 1 funding.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Our constituencies share much the same problem, so I have a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend is saying, but he will accept, I am sure, that one of the reasons that our areas are so poor and deprived is that they have been choked off from European funds under the present system. This Government have not fulfilled their commitment under present arrangements; that is why, with Commissioner Milian, the problem of additionality reared its head and there was a major conflict between the Commissioner and the present Government.
  When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I found that Welsh local authorities like Llanelli, Merthyr, Rhymney Valley and Blaenau Gwent approached members of the European Parliament to go direct to the Commission because this Government were blocking European funds.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend expresses the frustration of so many communities under Rechar and all the other arrangements. We fought hard to get some scraps out of the system for communities and societies which, as I have demonstrated, by any objective criteria, sadly qualify.
  Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is making a very important point. The plain truth is that ever since the two categories, 1 and 2, were introduced three or four years ago, the effect on the United Kingdom has been disastrous. We received less money in 1991, the last complete year available, than we did in 1986. Meanwhile, the regional fund has trebled.
  Mr. Rowlands: That is the point, and it is the ultimate condemnation of a Government who have failed to fight for us, and of the categories—it is a bit of both, I think. The Government could have fought for different categorisation of our communities.
  There is no reason why an objective 1 category should not cover communities like mine, because by any GDP per capita figure they ought to be part of it but are not. That is part of the funding under the structural fund.

  527
  The voice of the United Kingdom in Brussels, the voice we had, that of the Secretary of State, has been sorely inadequate and has failed us completely in fighting for the proper redistribution of funds to achieve development and growth and to achieve a breakthrough in growth, to break through the cycle of deprivation and the cycle of disappointing achievement which is so much of the character and nature of the communities I represent.
  I ask myself, do I go back to Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and say that there is an alternative called the Committee of the Regions with sufficient power and voice to be able to redress the balance in Europe? I fear that I cannot. I am worried and concerned that it will be a sop rather than an effective alternative regional voice within the structures of the new Europe of the European union.
  I hope that I am wrong, because we desperately need a much more effective and radical voice speaking for the communities I represent, not only at Westminster, in the form of an alternative Government, and a change of heart, but also in Brussels and Europe from where we now know that some of these funds should be coming to break our cycle of deprivation but are not reaching us. That is our case. My concern is that we are not over-sold—not sold something which turns out to be another talking shop.
  The Minister talked about subtlety of the appointments. There has been nothing subtle about the appointments made by the Secretary of State for Wales. Time and time again, he has appointed Conservative party chairpersons of one kind or another into a host of positions, wholly unrepresentative, even reaching to the heart of our health service, bringing services out of the Community, and now they are utterly unrepresentative of the spirit, feelings and wishes of the people of Wales.
  It is little wonder that we treat these appointments with great scepticism, and demand a more rigorous and statutory basis for these appointments, because we shall be left by the Secretary of State with a group of yes-persons of the character we have seen in the quangos that have been established in the past 10 years in Wales, fixed and filled with overtly party political appointments.
  While I support the drift and the principle of the amendments that have been moved to prevent that, I ask the Committee seriously to consider whether the character and nature of this committee is, in the longer term, the route we wish to pursue.
  Mr. Hill: It is an interesting but not, so far, a constructive debate. We have been talking around the regional fund but most Members have so far been discussing how to pack the Committee of the Regions with some of their friends. I put it no higher than that because this argument often comes up when a new institution is formed. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party on European matters and I were probably the only two hon. Members here who were members of the European regional policy committee in Brussels in 1973. These well displayed arguments, beautifully formed, with high indignation—"I am not going to get anything out of it"—are the sort of thing we have gone through time after time. The question is whether the regional development fund has become better over the past few years. We are talking about a period of 20 years.
  I remember clearly, as I am sure does the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), that
  528
  we realised at the time that the regional development fund, which was under-funded, did practically nothing. A regional fund for which every application has to be dealt with from central Governments would be very undemocratic. That had to be. In those days, when only Germany and the United Kingdom, perhaps, had the money to fund the development fund, we were delighted to find that we got 1,200 million ecu for a year. That lasted for one year. Then it went down to 450 million ecu. That is the way the fund can go. When one talks about a strategic fund which has to fulfil the expectations of everyone from the United Kingdom right down to Greece, Spain and Portugal, one realises that this is not a very sensible approach.
  Much of the idea in this case, too, is that the money will be targeted on the four poorest countries. We have always had this argument with regional development, about where the money should go. There was even a study at one time, which I took up myself, about the bridges and tunnels from Denmark to Sweden. We could have spent the whole of the regional development fund for many years on that, but the idea of this fund is that one does what the Committee of the Regions declares is essential; one starts from there.
  In the days that I am talking about there was no representation of the type envisaged in article 130b. There was no representation on that scale, although there were the heads of regional development. My old chum Christopher Chataway was a Minister at the time and every application had to go through his Department. The Committee of the Regions is the start of a bit of democracy, but we do not seem to want to recognise that or to congratulate the Prime Minister. The committee will have 24 representatives from the United Kingdom, who will be taken from all classes. I am not talking about politicians, as the average politician is a poor administrator—local councils are a good example of that and are poorly administered—and one cannot give them all the seats on the committee.
  6.30 pm
  When the committee is working, each region will have to put its case through its representatives. The committee will not be like the old closed shop. The only difficulty that I can envisage is that the committee has to submit a report to the European Parliament once in every three years. That time scale is too long.
  Mr. Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman used the words "representatives of the regions", but does he accept that they cannot be true representatives of their locality if they are appointed by national Government rather than by local or regional government? The Minister responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the system in Germany. The Länder can appoint people who are not representatives in the Länder, but the important thing is that, rather than the German Government, Länder will do the appointing. That is crucial and no Conservative Member has dealt with that issue.
  Mr. Hill: I do not know where that argument is going. The committee must be formed and each national Government will have its own way of submitting names. The mere fact that Germany or any other country—Greece, for example—has a different system is not at issue. Our system will be plain. We want people with great

  529
  expertise and we do not want a lot of time servers or a mass of people who have been on local councils for 50 years. We certainly do not want a lot of Back Benchers, who are only in the European argument to knock it to the ground.
  Mr. Randall: Many Opposition Members are concerned because we believe that the Government do not have a regional policy. The Committee of the Regions will be able to do what it likes—the scope of its responsibility is open. If people on the committee represent their regions, they will want to change regional policy. Since the Government do not want that to happen, they will put their Tory cronies in to block the whole system. That would be negative and would make the committee ineffective.
  Mr. Hill: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to refute that later. The hon. Gentleman mentioned "Tory cronies." There are socialist cronies, too.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I apologise to the Committee for not having said in my remarks that I hoped that Members would deal in their contributions with membership of the committee. It is probable that the Committee of the Regions will have a plenary meeting, but we estimate that about two days work each week will be required from those nominated to represent the United Kingdom. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that an elected councillor might find two days each week rather burdensome. The two countries which have nominated representatives have not chosen to nominate only elected councillors. That is another argument in favour of not doing so.
  Mr. Hill: The main argument is to get rid of political points. My next remarks will probably raise more hackles on the Opposition Benches.
  Advisers from the European investment bank will have to deal with the regional development fund and it would not be a bad idea to appoint someone who knows the banking industry. The same argument applies to practically everything that the committee will do. It will not want any time servers, and from what my right hon. Friend has said I am sure that it will not get them.
  There has always been an argument about peripherals. We have always had to plough more money in, and transborder money was always bespoken. Everyone, whether from Wales, Scotland, Ireland or anywhere else, was always at risk because they were not getting a sufficient slice of the cake. That is an odd way to approach the matter. The committee is just beginning. One will find that because of the quality of the people appointed to the Committee—people from throughout the United Kingdom—they will be approachable. They will not say, "You're only a Welshman—I'm not going to have anything to do with you because you have nothing to do with my region." When the committee is in place, 24 people will be working as a team to highlight some of the problems of the regions.
  I have long thought that the regional development fund did not get enough publicity for the fact that it provided millions of ecus to build the M25. Much of the funding came from the fund, but no one seemed to know about it. It was assumed that it was taxpayers' money—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] I suppose that in a roundabout way it was. However, people who have become interested in
  530
  European affairs in the past two years would never have known that the M25 was financed by the regional development fund.
  I must make a plea for a contribution from the Committee of the Regions. As soon as it sits, I should like it to study the construction of a southern counties expressway, made up of a route from Dover, along the south coast to Southampton. What better way is there to spend money? The expressway could also upgrade the A34 to Oxford and then turn eastwards, to Aylesbury and the east coast ports. One would stress to the committee that the expressway would be of motorway standard, and would provide an alternative to the M25. The concept is designed to cater for the ever-growing European dimension of trade within the Communiy.
  If we are a trading nation, we cannot ignore Europe. I cannot think that any hon. Member supposes that we could go back to being an island, trading only with ourselves and once in a while with America. Most hon. Members are politically wise and they must know that we cannot stay in isolation. A famous Labour Member said some years ago that we will be an island—I think that he is still saying it—and that we will trade where we can. He did not say "if we can, and he did not dismiss all those people in Europe who are looking to us as trading partners. He did not say, "Let us throw them all out with the bath water." He said, "We will trade where we can."
  When the members of the committee are studying what they wish to improve on the periphery of Europe, they will obviously look at trading matters. It is no use setting up a motorway, a seaport an airport or any great transport infrastructure if industry is not put at the end of the road. That will be one of the biggest problems. They may even think of Wales or Scotland for these industrial estates.
  If one could only get beyond the idea of having three Labour councillors, three Conservative councillors, and perhaps poor old Bloggs who went to the other place some years ago, and think of the opportunities—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hill: Certainly not to him. [Interruption.] I am not giving way to any of them. Everyone can speak this evening. I do not want to be critical of some of my colleagues, but they have more or less had their 10-minute speeches already. They have been interrupting each other or interrupting sympathisers across the Chamber. I will not aid and abet them in this deceit, because, as you rightly said, Mr. Lofthouse, everyone can speak in this debate for 10 or 15 minutes, if he or she wishes.
  I am waiting anxiously to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on regional development. Certainly, no one here knows the slightest thing about how the original regional development fund was started. I am waiting to hear some really good information. I have tried to say very little, because so many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
  Sir Richard Body: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hill: There is a quavering voice at the back of me, but I am not going to give way. The poor quavering old chap must sit back in his seat and wait until he catches your eye, Mr. Lofthouse.
  I feel that we are getting to the heart of the argument now. I admire the amendments that have been put down

  531
  —not that I shall vote for them, of course—because they have just one theme and they say exactly the same thing over and over again: let us see how we can pack the Committee of the Regions with our cronies. Ours will not be Tory cronies—they will be Tory experts.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: How refreshing it has been to hear the real voice of the Tory party. It was certainly amusing. Unfortunately, I did not understand one word of what the hon. Gentleman was getting at, and I do not think that the Minister did either, because I noticed that he was keeping his head very low during the hon. Member's speech.
  This debate is naturally of interest to us in Northern Ireland, as one of the regions in the European Community. The Maastricht agreement is something that, as I said on Second Reading, we in the Ulster Unionist party oppose, because, at the end of the day, it is a treaty for the union of Europe, basically moving away from a Europe of sovereign states co-operating into a Europe of European regions. It is a shift in that direction. That is the real thrust of the Maastricht agreement: slowly, step by step, to undermine the sovereignty of the 12 nations and establish in their place the regions.
  6.45 pm
  I do not agree with that, but, if it is taking place and if it is to happen, I have to come down in favour of the Committee of the Regions. To that extent, and with that qualification, I support the proposal for such a committee.
  We in Northern Ireland have been very badly governed since 1972. We have never had a representative elected in Northern Ireland governing us; it has always been an elected representative from England, and perhaps once or twice from Scotland. We therefore have little say in our own affairs, and certainly in the European Community we have no voice other than through the three Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. In Brussels, the Northern Ireland Office is hardly ever heard; it is not represented by Ministers in the Council of Ministers on fisheries, agriculture or any of the other important issues that affect us in Northern Ireland.
  I well remember from my 10 years in the European Parliament, most of which I served as a member of the European regional committee, that it was one of the more useful committees in the Parliament, within which the regions had a voice. I remember that there was a lady called Beatta Brookes who certainly spoke up for Wales. It is perhaps not popular to mention her on this side of the Committee—[Interruption.] I am certainly not going to embarrass the other side of the Committee.
  Certainly, the European regional committee was one of the more influential committees in the European Parliament. Because of the weakness of the Northern Ireland Office, it was possible for the elected Members of the European Parliament to correct the mistakes which the Northern Ireland Office was making. I will give an example.
  A scheme was devised under the European regional development programme for cross-border tourist projects for the border regions. That was a good idea on both the Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland sides of the border. When the proposed map of the areas of tourism was produced to the regional committee of the European
  532
  Parliament, Donegal was naturally recommended, and Sligo and Leitrim as very good tourist areas on the southern side of the border. And what did the Northern Ireland Office recommend for our side? It recommended Crossmaglen and South Armagh—for tourist projects. That was a mistake, Mr. Lofthouse, as you will recognise.
  When the scheme came before the regional committee of the European Parliament, I got my Communist colleagues, my Labour colleagues from Wales, my Social Democrat, Conservative and Christian Democrat colleagues to support me in an amendment to change the boundaries. We finally got the mountains of Mourne and Newcastle included as principal tourist areas near the border. I managed to slip in part of my own constituency as well while I was at it.
  That was accepted, and we immediately became the first places in Northern Ireland to benefit from this scheme. We got a £1 million tourist project in the village of Millisle. This shows how an elected representative from an area can influence the regional development policy to help his own region.
  That is why I welcome this proposal in principle. If we are to have a Europe of the regions, which we are moving towards—although, as I say, I am not very happy with that drift in European political thinking—I believe that the European Committee for the Regions is a good idea, and the people on it should be locally elected representatives of the regions.
  I do not accept what the Minister has told the Committee this afternoon—that only two countries have so far decided the basis of their representation on the committee. If he looks into it more carefully, or is advised better by his officials, I think that he will find that most of the countries are coming down in favour of locally elected representatives on the committee.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course, three member states, as mentioned by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), have indicated how they intend, broadly speaking, to appoint their members. I am simply making the point, which I believe to he a fair one, that two member states have so far not gone entirely down that road.
  There is a case for a mix—a case that I hope the Committee will address. I am open-minded about this matter. The Government have not made any decisions. However, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider his own part of the kingdom and make his own judgment about the number of people who might be available, as that is an important aspect of the matter. He should consider whether the election of a representative —or two, or whatever number might be allocated—would be the proper route. I am genuinely interested in hearing the right hon. Gentleman's views.
  Mr. Taylor: I am glad to detect a shift of emphasis in what the Minister has said. In his opening speech, he said that only two nations had made recommendations about their representatives on the Committee of the Regions. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that there were a further three. I note that the Minister no longer rejects what the Opposition spokesman has suggested.
  Our own research paper mentions one of those three. It says:
  "Denmark—number of seats, nine.

  533
  The Danish Government has now made its nominations by agreement with the Association of Local and County Authorities and the city of Copenhagen: four seats to counties and municipalities, and one to the city of Copenhagen."
  So, in Denmark, the representatives are being selected in co-operation with the locally elected authorities. I could quote what is happening in the other countries, and I stand by my contention that most countries are clearly going for locally elected representatives on the Committee of the Regions.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The only point that I am seeking to establish is that it would not be against the spirit or the letter of the treaty not to have locally elected representatives. Clearly, that is one of the options available to us, but the Government have not made any decision. We shall listen carefully to the points that are made. The reason for my rejection of the Opposition's amendment is that it seeks to establish that all members of the Committee of the Regions must be locally elected councillors. That is not necessarily the answer.
  Mr. Taylor: The Minister is right to say that he is under no obligation to appoint locally elected representatives to the new Committee of the Regions. The other 11 countries of the European Communities will concentrate on having elected representatives from the regions, and that is what we would prefer for the United Kingdom.
  I gave as an example my experience in the European Parliament, on whose regional committee I was able to exercise influence when the Northern Ireland Office had failed to do so. I fear that, if it is left to the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office to send representatives to this committee, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will not have a truly representative voice. That is bound to be so in the case of Wales, which has an Englishman as Secretary of State.
  Mr. Salmond: But there is a grave weakness even in the terms of the amendment. It uses the words
  "shall be drawn from elected local government representatives."
  If it is left to the Government to choose the elected local representatives, they will still have the whip hand and the power of discretion. They will be able to select any local representatives who are amenable.
  Mr. Taylor: Fortunately, they will not find any Conservative elected representatives in Northern Ireland. That will not be a major problem for us. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There are Tory councillors, and they could well be chosen. Indeed, three of them could be picked.
  Mr. Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, most of those Conservatives have announced that they will join the Ulster Unionist party. The Tory candidate in the constituency of Belfast, East at the last general election has said that he intends to stand as an Ulster Unionist candidate in the forthcoming local elections.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend is making. Does he agree that, in the case of Northern Ireland, Ministers are appointing tame people who will do their bidding rather than represent the wishes of the people—especially when councils suggest people?
  Mr. Taylor: This is a common problem throughout Northern Ireland, and the more one listens to this debate the more one realises that it is shared in Wales and in Scotland. More and more quangos and other such bodies are being created in our parts of the United Kingdom. We are getting placemen rather than people who are truly representative of the local community.
  The Minister asked whether I would like to have on this Committee an elected representative from Northern Ireland. The answer is yes. There is in Northern Ireland an association of local authorities. I should like to see on the Committee of the Regions some representation through that body. There should be at least two members from Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Salmond: Only two?
  Mr. Taylor: Two will be sufficient. If Scotland gets one, we shall take two.
  I should like to refer to the cohesion fund, as I am very concerned about it.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, earlier in the day, the Minister was very cruel in referring to conspiracies on the Back Benches. As the Minister is now on the Opposition Front Bench, can we take it that there is a conspiracy there?
  Mr. Taylor: I have already mentioned the transfer of several Conservatives to the Ulster Unionist party. I am glad that the Minister is moving closer to us.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I was simply doing my best to ascertain what had been arranged with my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. Collusion rages on all sides.
  Mr. Taylor: I know that the Minister is an authority on collusion.
  The cohesion fund is a matter of great concern throughout the United Kingdom. This is not a Northern Ireland issue. The regional fund was quite properly intended to assist the regions in greatest need. We heard, for example, about Mid Glamorgan. That is the sort of region that should qualify under the European regional development fund. But there are similar regions throughout the 12 countries of the European Communities.
  The problem with the cohension fund is that it is not related to regions at all, that it is related to states—and to four states only. Although the whole emphasis of the Maastricht agreement is on giving more power to the regions and on the creation of a European union of the regions, it contains a contradiction, in that it creates a cohesion fund for four states only. That will damage the interests of some regions in states that are poorer than the four that are to benefit.
  The Minister will have to explain more carefully the reason for this additional cohesion fund. Will it be able to do anything that the existing European development fund cannot do, or does not have the facilities to do? It seems to me that the European regional development fund is quite adequate. Indeed, it is better formulated to assist the really needy regions. It seems to me that the cohesion fund is simply a means of allocating money, through another institution, to discriminate in favour of four nations and to damage the interests of more needy regions.
  I should like from the Minister a response to my earlier interjection about the Edinburgh decisions. The

  535
  Government deserve some praise for the way in which they secured an agreement on the budget. That agreement should be contrasted with the claims of some countries and, of course, of M. Delors himself. The compromise was reasonable in the circumstances. But there is a matter in respect of which I have not seen the figures and would like an explanation. When we are agreeing on the raised ceiling of the European budget, how will the cohesion fund fare?
  What is the separate figure for the entire cohesion fund? When the Minister answered my earlier intervention he included the funding for the European regional development fund in the cohesion fund. We need to know the amount of the cohesion fund on its own. How much is to be allocated to the four sovereign states that are to benefit from it?
  7 pm
  The cohesion fund is a mistake. We should stick to the European regional development fund and help the needier regions in the Community. The cohesion fund presents a further problem for us in the United Kingdom. Some members of the Committee have spoken as though the cohesion fund would benefit the United Kingdom. They do not seem to realise that the United Kingdom will not receive one penny from the cohesion fund. The United Kingdom is fully excluded from the benefits of the cohesion fund.
  However, one way in which we are not excluded from it is that we shall be one of its main financiers. The United Kingdom and Germany will have to provide most of the money for the European cohesion fund.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. Due to Britain's abatement, the Federal Republic of Germany and France are the main contributors to the cohesion fund. The Federal Republic contributes, I think, 30 per cent. and the French about 20 per cent. The rest of the money comes from the other richer countries, and Britain contributes 5 per cent. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was not quite correct.
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, but our European partners consider the abatement a temporary arrangement. As the Minister well knows, they are trying to get it removed.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: It will last until the end of this century, and even then can be changed only by unanimity.
  Mr. Taylor: That was not the view of those who attended the European Council. Some of them were arguing to have it changed at once. That is the problem —the abatement is being challenged.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some countries wanted the system changed, but it can be changed only by unanimity—it will need our assent—and cannot even come up for discussion until the end of the century.
  Mr. Taylor: As the Minister has said, the problem of financing the cohesion fund rests mainly with France, Germany and the United Kingdom—even with our abatement. The position will be worse if the abatement disappears.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is it not absolutely obvious that our European partners, which are desperate for us to ratify the
  536
  treaty, are hardly likely to commit the grievous political error of clobbering us by taking away our abatement? When they have obtained their treaty, it may be a different story.
  Mr. Taylor: I fully understand that. The Minister understands collusion, and I think that he will understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. In Europe, things are done step by step. I think that the Minister said that the cohesion fund was part of a deal.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: A bargain.
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, a bargain. We bargained with four countries that they, and they alone, would receive money from the cohesion fund as long as they took certain actions.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall not intervene in the right hon. Gentleman's speech again, I promise. The arrangements made at Edinburgh—which constituted a deal—set the financing of the European Community until 1999. The British abatement will not be discussed again until 1999, and can be altered only by unanimity.
  Mr. Taylor: That does not change the main thrust of my argument. Even the Minister has confirmed that Germany, France and the United Kingdom will be the three main financiers of the cohesion fund. That must mean that we will have to find funds from our own national budget, which will probably lead to an increase in value added tax in the United Kingdom, in order to help finance the cohesion fund so that money can be given to the four other countries.
  Mr. William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman may recall that, at the Edinburgh summit, special provisions relating to the eastern part of Germany were made to the cohesion fund. Those provisions were not well publicised, but I think that the figure was about 18 billion ecu—it may have been £18 billion, I am not sure. It was a substantial sum, which was kept very much under wraps.
  Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Germans are making a contribution is offset by that additional amount? Bearing in mind the formula for the qualification for the cohesion fund—which is, I think, 90 per cent. of the average of the gross national product of the Community—how is Germany to make any contribution at all?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of eastern Germany's special position, which I had totally forgotten. It helps to undercut the argument of the Minister when we realise that Germany may be making a major contribution, but some of it will come back to eastern Germany.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I have now checked, and the figures are even better than those that I gave the right hon. Gentleman earlier. He started by saying that Britain and Germany were paying for the cohesion fund. That is not correct. Germany and France are paying substantially more than the United Kingdom, as is Italy. Although I do not have the figures to hand, I would not be surprised if other countries were doing so as well. We are paying 5 per cent. of the cohesion fund.
  Mr. Taylor: The United Kingdom is one of the main financiers of the European Community budget, of which the cohesion fund will be a part.
  Mr. Garel-.Jones: We can discuss the budget under other groups of amendments, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that his original point was entirely inaccurate.
  Mr. Taylor: No, it was not. The Minister is confirming it. He is saying that France, Germany and the United Kingdom—and he has just added Italy—are some of the main contributors to the cohesion fund.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks, as Hansard will show, by saying that the United Kingdom and Germany financed the cohesion fund—they were the biggest contributors. I see that hon. Members are assenting to that proposition. From memory, I was able to say that Germany paid 30 per cent., France 20 per cent. and the United Kingdom—because of its abatement—only 5 per cent. I have now been told by my advisors that Italy contributes substantially more than the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the budget, that is another matter, but it is important to nail the fact that he commenced by saying that the United Kingdom and Germany were the biggest contributors to the cohesion fund. That is not correct.
  Mr. Taylor: It will be once the abatement disappears, and the thrust in Europe is to get the abatement removed, which will happen step by step. The thrust in Europe is to remove, in time, the British abatement which was negotiated by Mrs. Thatcher.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think that the Committee should allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with that. It was agreed at Edinburgh that the British abatement should remain unchanged. It will come up for discussion at the end of the century. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will say that, at the end of the century, it will be changed. However, it is fixed until the end of the century—a substantial achievement by the Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman must produce better arguments to underpin what he is trying to say than those that he is presently giving the Committee.
  Mr. Taylor: The Minister thinks that six years is a long time, but the arrangements will not necessarily last for six years. Those who follow the debate in Europe will know that most European nations are actively campaigning for the abatement to be withdrawn. They will not wait for six years. They may have agreed to that as part of the deal at Edinburgh to which the Minister referred, but once the Maastricht treaty is ratified, they will not hold back six years. The thrust to get rid of the abatement will increase and gain momentum.
  Mr. Jenkin: The question is not whether we change the budget in 1999 but what budget there is, because the current budget provisions run out in 1999. It may be true that we cannot approve a new budget except by unanimity, but it will start with a blank sheet of paper.
  Mr. Taylor: I intend to pursue the hon. Gentleman's point about the budget. The cohesion fund is only part of the overall European Community budget and the United Kingdom is one of the main contributors to that budget. Germany contributes even more. As expenditure increases on agriculture, the European regional development fund and the new cohesion fund, it will place a greater burden
  538
  on United Kingdom taxpayers. Our Government will have to find additional funds to help finance the European community.
  Mr. Barry Legg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the financial perspective issued at the Edinburgh summit showed that the cohesion fund spending up to 1999 would amount to some 15 billion ecu? The Minister has told us that Britain will contribute 5 per cent. of that, so the United Kingdom will contribute £750 million into the cohesion fund and we will never get a single penny of it back.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman put that in very straightforward terms. We will have to contribute £125 million a year for the next six years.
  The money going into the cohesion fund and towards the increased expenditure of the European Community, which will increase further because of the cohesion fund, will mean that the Treasury will have to find more funds in forthcoming years—£125 million simply as our contribution to the cohesion fund. That must mean additional taxes in the United Kingdom. I suspect that it will mean an increase in VAT throughout the United Kingdom to help finance the increased budget requirements of the European Community.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman please put his argument in context? He should remember that, despite the abatement we already have, the total controlled expenditure of the United Kingdom Government next year is £244·5 billion, so the sums of money that he mentions are not as critical to the overall budget as he makes out—and indeed many of us think they are going to a rather good cause.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: That is an extremely interesting argument from a Conservative Member. He suggests that £150 million here or there is not terribly important to the national budget of the United Kingdom at a time when we are embarrassed by our public borrowing requirement. I fear for the future of the nation if the Conservative party thinks in that way. Now is the time to control public expenditure and not to dismiss £150 million here or there as if it were of no consequence.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman cannot abuse my argument in that way. I said that that was a controlled total, so by definition it is controlled and the money is allocated within it. I was attempting to show the proportionality.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Proportionality is control, and I hope that the Government will stand over those controls in the forthcoming year as they prepare their budget. If it is controlled, the Government will have to decrease expenditure here in the United Kingdom in order to find extra funding to allocate to Europe.
  I suspect that we will have increased taxes and VAT in the United Kingdom because of the increased budget of the European Community, partly because of the new cohesion fund. It hurts us in Northern Ireland to think that VAT may be increased to pay for the new cohesion fund which will to to Greece, Spain, Portugal—and, of course, our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland.
  Sir Russell Johnston: As far as I can see, the right hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence whatsoever that the measure will result in VAT and tax increases. He should

  539
  also note the second point raised by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor)—that the money was going to a good cause. Is he not at all interested in benefiting the poorer areas of the Community? If he is not, other people might not be interested in helping him with his problems.
  Mr. Taylor: It all depends on what one understands by a good cause. I believe that the more needy regions of the United Kingdom would be a good cause. However, instead of getting money from the European Community for the regions within the United Kingdom that need support, the Government have decided, as part of a deal, to use the Minister's words, to give it to four particular nations. We are being asked to help finance that.
  Finance has to be found somewhere. It comes from taxes, and no Conservative Member can run away from the fact that the cohesion fund and the increased budget requirements of the European Community will mean that extra money will have to be found in the United Kingdom to help finance those four beneficiaries of the cohesion fund. That will lead to increased taxes throughout the United Kingdom, and I suspect that VAT will also increase. It will be resented throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom that we are being asked to increase taxation to help finance four countries which in some respect are much better off than some of the regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  7.15 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Committee is getting more and more interesting because rules are coming into operation as our debate proceeds. Earlier today, the Minister would not let me intervene in his speech. I thought that that was what Committee work was all about—not for making Second Reading speeches but for the Minister to help us to understand what he was doing. He said that he would not let me get in because I was going to make a speech. He then allowed all and sundry to get in, but I was not allowed to intervene because I was going to make a speech. I know that the Minister is anxious to explain now. He may lower his glasses almost to the tip of his nose and smile with the bedside manner of an old village doctor telling his patient that all is well, that heaven is in front of him and he will escape purgatory, but those are the facts.
  Even the Chairman told us at the beginning of the debate that he would be absolutely fair to all sections of the United Kingdom. I have attended all the debates except one and only now am I able to speak. The other night when I tried to speak, the Minister contrived to close the debate; now he is about to tell us how much he loves Northern Ireland and how much he hates me.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I think that the hon. Gentleman understood the point that I was making. An hon. Member representing Northern Ireland has said on a point of order that Northern Ireland Members had a particular interest in the debate, and as they wished to return to the Province later in the day were keen to get in quickly. The only point that I was seeking to make to the hon. Gentleman in all friendliness was that I did not want to take up the Committee's time in such a way as to cause inconvenience to hon. Members such as himself.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I find it strange that the Minister is now dividing the House into the nations which make up
  540
  the United Kingdom. If a Labour Member from Scotland said that many people from Scotland wanted to speak, he could not rule out Conservative Members but allow all other hon. Members from Scotland to speak.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that he has a very special and important position in the House and is in general given a justified preference, particularly over run-of-the-mill English Conservative Members. He is frustrated and angered at the way in which he has not been able to speak, but let him consider for a moment the frustration and anger of those of us who have sat here day after day, constantly excluded, finding it possible only to make an intervention. He should understand the sense of resentment which permeates the Committee.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I certainly appreciate how all hon. Members feel about the debate because the ramifications and the influence of what we are doing now will affect every part of the United Kingdom. I fail to understand why we cannot have more time to debate these matters. The House does not do itself justice when people throughout the country are asking why, if the Government have an unassailable position, they are so afraid to have a debate.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. He now has the floor and the opportunity to discuss the group of amendments under consideration.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Thank you, Dame Janet. If I had not been led on to By-path Meadow by the Minister, I would not have been in the delectable country that I wanted to traverse, so I shall come back to the straight and narrow way and talk about the cohesion fund, which I think is in order.
  The Minister has made some amazing statements which do not go with the forecasts that even the Treasury put to us about the fund. I have a copy of the report of a Treasury committee on the perspective that was agreed on the basis of Edinburgh. The Minister talks about the cohesion fund being 5 per cent. but the perspective from the Treasury committee said that in 1993 it would be 2·2 per cent., in 1994 2·5 per cent., in 1995 2·8 per cent., in 1996 3·0 per cent., in 1997 3·2 per cent., in 1998 3·1 per cent. and in 1999 3·1 per cent. The figures that I shall put are not on the Minister's basis of 5 per cent., so we can almost double the amount when we talk about what we shall be contributing to this fund.
  As the Minister is in such good answering form at present, can he tell me the basis of the proportion that we shall have to give to the cohesion fund? Is it a percentage of our overall European Community contribution? That, of course, includes the rebate, so the rebate cannot be used in the argument. Is it a percentage of the total overall contribution that we make? I see the Minister nodding.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: As I have indicated to the Committee, Dame Janet, I will seek to catch your eye at a later point in the debate, and I will reply then.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As this is a Committee, there is no point in my building an argument on something that you now disagree on. You have nodded your head. I take it that you agree with what I have said. You do not agree? Then tell us why.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should address me in the Chair rather than the Minister directly.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am very sorry, Dame Janet, that the Minister will not give me an answer on this. The fact is that the United Kingdom contributes to the cohesion fund in proportion to what it contributes to the overall European Community budget. One would like to know the specific figures, the amount of money, that we have to give to the fund.
  Let us first look at what the fund is about. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) talked about good causes. I think that by that he means the poorer regions of Europe. There is no difference between poor regions, whether they are in Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Scotland or Northern Ireland, but the European Commission and Mr. Delors did not think about the regions arid did not deal with the regions: Mr. Delors dealt with the countries that he desired to bribe or buy into the Maastricht treaty.
  We heard this from the southern Irish politicians when they were selling Maastricht. They told their people that they were getting £3 million a day from Europe and that if the people voted for Maastricht the figure would go up to £6 million. That was their message, with Garret FitzGerald at the head of a European crusade in his own country. If the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), could offer the people of Scotland £3 million a day and tell them that if they voted for Strasbourg it would go up, he might possibly be on a winner. Or perhaps the Scottish people are different and feel that there are more valuable things than £6 million a day. I hope that that would be true of many of the Scots people, especially in the islands.
  This was a buy-out settlement for those people. They were told that this would happen. The rage generated against Denmark and the rage generated against this House and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was all about the cohesion fund and the fact that they would lose out. We have heard a lot about helping one another, about the great European ideal and the great unity that we should have in Europe. Why cannot the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament unite to help all the poor regions and spend this money in all the poor regions?
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing against cohesion funds or in favour of cohesion funds applying to more countries than they currently do.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am arguing that if one has a cohesion fund and one tells people that it is for the poor regions, it should be for all the poor regions if one is a European. If one is a nationalist from the south of Ireland or from Portugal or Spain or Greece, then one would argue for giving nothing to Northern Ireland or to Scotland and for giving all the cohesion money to one's own country. I totally oppose that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman opposes it, too. He would like to see a fair share of the cake for Scotland—
  Several hon. Members: Wales.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry—Wales. He is a Celt, anyway, and we in Ulster have a bit of that in us, too. Perhaps we have some collusion—I think that that is the word.
  If we have this cohesion fund, Britain will be a large contributor. I have heard that challenged by the Government Front Bench as well. It is important to note that the contributions each year are taken on the basis of the overall money that a particular country pays to Europe that year. Sometimes France, for example, does not make any real payment to Europe. The French contribution has gone up and down like a yo-yo. We want to see what the scale will be because that is what decides it.
  Why does the Minister not stand up and tell us exactly how much money we shall have to give to the fund? He says that it is 5 per cent. On the figures that I have quoted from the Treasury document, over the first five years the cohesion fund will be 10 billion ecu—£8 billion—and the United Kingdom will contribute £144 million for the first year, with the figure rising each year thereafter. That is on the figure of 2·2 per cent., but the Minister says that it is 5 per cent. —so we can double it, making it nearly £300 million. The 5 per cent. is the Minister's figure, not mine.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) replied to an hon. Member on the Government side who said it is all right to say that we can give so many million here, so many million there and so many million somewhere else, but from all over the House I hear cries for hospitals, roads, schools, nurses, and so on. We do not have the money to hand out in this way. If this money is handed out to the south of Ireland, it will do down the economy of Northern Ireland. The House should remember that. Under this fund there will be a special emphasis on transport—and transport is the key to the economy of the south and to the economy of the north of Ireland. When the channel tunnel opens, it will be all important to the people of Northern Ireland and of the south of Ireland. Money will be poured in by the people of Northern Ireland to create a transport structure which will help the economy of the south of Ireland while the people of Northern Ireland will not enjoy that benefit.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the other criteria for obtaining cohesion funds is compliance with the convergence conditions? Does he appreciate that in the existing climate it is highly improbable, from all that we can tell, that there will be compliance with those conditions? It is therefore not just a question of bribery on a massive scale. Far more dangerous even than that, perhaps, is the raising of expectations that will be unfulfilled, as a result of which there will be a complete reversal of attitudes towards the Community. That will help to destroy the benefits of the Community's existing arrangements rather than enhance them. That is an extremely dangerous situation, given the uncertainty of the political landscape in Europe as a whole.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Mr. Bangemann, a former German Finance Minister and a vice-president of the Commission, is well known to members of the Committee, and I have sat with him in all the elected Parliaments of Europe. I asked him what would happen and he replied, "As a matter of fact, we have a problem with eastern Germany. The people here think that we are to be the paymaster. They will get a

  543
  shock. We have to achieve convergence between eastern and western Germany before we can achieve convergence with the rest of Europe." That will be costly, and does anyone think that Germany will finance it—or that the British public will be prepared to wear other countries getting the things that Britain needs?
  I am sure that the people of Scotland and Wales are worried about their transport infrastructure. Their worry is justifiable, because transport will be all-important in the future business and economy of the United Kingdom. Why must we give to others that which we need for ourselves? We must consider that very realistically.
  I do not know what will happen when the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box in the future and announces cuts here and cuts there in this country's spending on the necessities of life, while the cohesion fund goes on and on.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Reference was made to good causes. I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument about money for the regions. Is he aware that the Republic of Ireland boasted recently about the higher rate of social benefits that it pays to pensioners and others compared with our nation? Also, at a time when our industrial base is being eroded, Spain has a record of enjoying the fastest industrial growth in Europe. Is it not strange that those two countries should be earmarked to benefit from the cohesion fund rather than regions in our own nation where there is tremendous need?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am trying to put that argument to the Committee. It is a solemn matter, and one that we must all consider. Certain nations are boasting of their prosperity and how well they are doing, while this country has suffered a series of cutbacks. No matter how optimistic one may be, no one imagines that the future will be rosy. Those of us who are close to the people know something of the agony of unemployment and its effect on our country.
  The British people, no matter from which part of the nation they come, would be happy if a fair playing field existed, so that all regions with the same difficulties received the same amount from the cohesion fund. Then there would be an argument for the fund. But that is not happening—the fund discriminates against countries outside a group of four nations, although they share the same problems, sometimes to a greater degree.
  We should have been given time tonight thoroughly to debate that matter. I should like to see the Minister of State in his place, ready to answer those questions. If the figures that I gave are not correct, this is the time freely to debate them. Instead, this is being changed into a Second Reading debate, with the Minister replying at the end—though because of lack of time, he will probably say, "I am sorry, I cannot answer."
  I should like to know how much this country is to contribute to the cohesion fund. Is the Treasury committee document right or wrong? Will the figure be 2·2 per cent. or 5 per cent.? Do we pay a proportion of our entire EEC contribution or not? If we do, what is the proportion? The Committee should concern itself with those questions.
  As to countries which will benefit from the cohesion fund, mention has been made of their presence in other activities. Let us take Spain as an example. Anyone who knows about the fishing industry knows of the rage against
  544
  Spain. Northern Ireland has a small but able fishing fleet, and one which makes a valuable contribution to Northern Ireland's economy. Spanish boats can come in and poach —lawfully, their owners say—in our waters and take away our fishermen's livelihoods. The fishermen say to me,
  "Why is it that the British Government are giving them special grants? Why do we have to pay, by way of taxes, into their special fund?" How does one answer that? How does the Minister answer that?
  Mr. Cash: If the hon. Gentleman does not receive a reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister, perhaps he would care to reflect on remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in January 1991, when he said that the consequences of going down that route, including a single currency, would create difficulties. He said:
  "A programme of transfers—potentially huge—would be very difficult for the more prosperous countries to take. Even on present policies"—
  and that does not include the deal that has just been concluded—
  "by 1993 we will be funding a structural policy costing between £11 billion and £12 billion each year."—[Official Report, 24 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 478.]
  That was my right hon. Friend the Chancellor taking a fairly effective potshot at the arrangements, which have been made considerably worse as a result of the Edinburgh deal.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That brings us to the balance between the cohesion fund and the structural fund. I noticed that the Minister tried to tie them together, so that we would not have a clear perspective of the cohesion fund apart from the structural fund. However, we also pay a large slice of the structural fund. Figures from the Treasury committee show that the United Kingdom's contribution will be 30·8 per cent. in 1993; 31·3 per cent. in 1994; 32·4 per cent. in 1995; 33·2 per cent. in 1996; 34 per cent. in 1997; 34·9 per cent. in 1998; and 35·7 per cent. in 1999. That is the extent of our contribution to the structural fund, over and above that to the cohesion fund.
  Let me say a bit about the Committee of the Regions. There is a social committee in Europe. I am a Member of the European Parliament, but I have never met the Northern Ireland members of that committee, and I do not know what they do; I should like to know.
  What we are setting up is not a national quango, but a European quango. The Government seem to be resisting the idea of elected representatives being on the Committee of the Regions. Why is that? The Government say that this or that section of the people should be represented, but elected representatives represent all sections of the people, and hope to obtain votes from all sections of the people. If we argue that the commitee must have an agricultural representative, and representatives from medicine and education, for instance, where will it all end? Who will be left out, and how will the choice be made?
  I differ from the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who comes from my own part of the United Kingdom. I do not think that all the Tories are joining the Unionists, or that the majority are doing so. Of course, some Unionists joined the Tory party; now they are returning to their first love, which may be deemed a good thing or a bad thing. But there will still be Tories in Northern Ireland—and, if even one were elected to represent a Northern Ireland constituency, he might be an appropriate member of the committee. If members are

  545
  chosen in the same way as members of other quangos, those who have too many votes will not be in; only those who have fewer votes succeed, and they usually lose the seats that they have gained at a subsequent election. They have a consolation prize, at least.
  We should take a strong line on this: we should ask for elected representatives, and we should require their representation to be in proportion to the representation of their parties in the areas that they represent. I also believe that there should be three members from Northern Ireland.
  Ms. Quin: Earlier, a Conservative Member made a suggestion about the National Farmers Union, and another mentioned a banking representative. If we followed such advice, would we not simply duplicate the work of the economic and social committee, which already represents business, trade union and other interests? I agree with the hon. Gentleman that elected representatives would be far more appropriate.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: This is, indeed, a time when we should have elected representatives on the committee. They know what the people are thinking, and they have to go back to the people. Surely some sort of accountability should govern the arrangements. To whom will the commit tee be accountable, if not the people whom it is supposed to represent?
  Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Is not this the key factor? We are debating crucial funds, and much of the control over them lies with the Commission. The whole point is that the Commission will be empowered to look at those whom they wish to favour and those whom they do not. I believe that the funding will become retrospective.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Those who are in favour of Mr. Delors and Europe will move forward; those who happen to be against them will not move forward. I am the only Member of Parliament who sits on the enlarged bureau, and I have seen the shenanigans that go on between parties. Even Mr. Delors is a member of that distinguished gathering, as it is called, and I have seen the way in which he manipulates it to get his way. After all, Mr. Delors is the man sitting in the Commission who will eventually say how the funds will be used.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman describes Mr. Delors as "manipulating people to get his own way". Has he never manipulated anyone for that purpose?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I submit myself to the electorate, and I happen to get a larger vote than any other Member of the European Parliament. I do that by telling the people what I stand for, and they like that. The hon. Gentleman stood for membership of the European Parliament, but the electorate did not like him. He was not able to manipulate people. I was not trying to do so; I believe in fair, honest representation, and I believe that there should be no buy-off.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is tremendous suspicion in Northern Ireland at present? It is suspected that, should cohesion funds go to the Irish Republic because of shenanigans, scheming, manipulation and deals made in
  546
  various places, they might just be used to get new ships to compete against Northern Ireland's existing transport arrangements.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That is possible. The Government of the Republic has made such a proposal twice; it was turned down both times, and is now being considered for a third time.
  The hon. Gentleman represents an area that I used to represent before the redistribution of seats. He knows how valuable the port of Lame is to the economy of Northern Ireland. He also knows that an effort is now being made to make those who travel from the south stop using the Larne ferries. Yet the money given by Europe was intended to establish that port and help it, so that it could aid both north and south. Now, money is to be given to the south to destroy what Lame was funded to do. I have asked the Transport Commissioner about this. What is the use of spending money in that way when the port has been helpful to the whole of Ireland? Fleets come to the south and use it, but now the aim is to divert that traffic.
  When I was in Europe recently, I was shown a map on which the ferry service was not even marked. There was a little circle over the Holyhead route, indicating that the availability of funds was being discussed. I believe that everyone has the right of access to a port in their country, but I do not believe that it is right to try to develop a port in the south of Ireland which will take traffic away from Larne, which has been established with the help of EC money.
  The south of Ireland received special funding for culverting roads, which was not made available in the north. That was for the preparation of the road network for strengthening in the south to take traffic away from the north. If there is competition, we can have it; but I do not believe that European funds should be used to help one part of the Community to the detriment of another. That is my objection to the cohesion fund, and to the whole proposal.
  Mr. Peter Hain: I wish to deal specifically with amendments Nos. 102 and 103, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) and I have put our names.
  Both the debate and the amendments are important. This area of policy bridges the gap between the constitutional and economic arguments for democratic reform of the European Community. I concede that the treaty undoubtedly makes some advance in that respect. For example, the protocol on the cohesion fund provides for financial transfers to improve the infrastructure of the four poorest countries—Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland. The protocol also specifies an enhanced role for the EC structural funds, principally the European regional development fund and the European social fund. Between 1989 and 1992, the structural funds doubled in size to 14 billion ecu and have since increased to 19·7 billion ecu for 1993. They are due to rise to 27·4 billion ecu by 1999.
  Article 198a of the treaty establishes the Committee of the Regions which will consist of
  "representatives of regional and local bodies".
  Although it is a purely consultative body, it would be an important voice for the regions. That is very welcome, but it will be a toothless committee. The treaty's fatal flaw is the absence of a coherent and credible EC economic and

  547
  industrial strategy. It echoes the failures of Britain's Thatcherite obsession with monetarism in the early 1980s and, indeed, throughout most of the 1980s.
  Last year unemployment in the European Community was driven up to nearly 17 million, or 9 per cent., which is significantly higher than the 7 per cent. average for the 24 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In the 1970s, by contrast, EC unemployment rates were lower than the average for the OECD. This year, we are looking to 20 million unemployed. According to the OECD, under the present monetarist policies enshrined in the Maastricht treaty, we can anticipate average unemployment across the Community increasing still further to 16 per cent., or 30 million, by the end of the decade—nearly double the figure for last year.
  That total is absolutely horrifying. I believe that it will result in the social disintegration of Europe unless there is a radical change in the economic policy and economic perspective of the Community. Unless there is such a radical change, the whole European project will collapse. The regional dimension is absolutely critical in developing and pressing for that change.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is pursuing an argument which is absolutely central to the direction in which the exercise and enterprise of Maastrict is going. Underlying the treaty there is a deliberate policy to create unemployment and to cut public expenditure. Whatever party one belongs to, the hon. Gentleman's arguments must be answered, not only by Ministers but by people outside, namely the trade unionists and others who support the Opposition. To what extent are they listening to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues?
  Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comment and I also welcome him to the stable of supporters of public expenditure and government directed at that objective. I hope that the trade unionists and others who have backed the Maastricht treaty because it brings the social chapter, if not in Britain, elsewhere will consider the economic arguments more seriously, especially as they affect the so-called peripheral regions.
  Mr. Llew Smith: I want to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The 3 per cent. budget deficit is likely to result in public expenditure cuts of about £12,000 million. Will my hon. Friend hazard a guess at the effect on the valley communities in south Wales which have traditionally relied on a high level of public expenditure? Can he explain how people, including members of our Front Bench, can vote for £12,000 million of public expenditure cuts when they vote for the treaty?
  Mr. Hain: I think that the figure of £12 billion expenditure cuts is probably on the low side. However, I shall not pursue that idea for fear of being reprimanded, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
  Part of the problem is that the otherwise worthy objective of monetary union is being pursued without a coherent policy for growth or reflation and without any policy for full employment. In fact, the monetarist policy backed by rigid fiscal controls, notably on public sector
  548
  debt and deficit, is imposing such a narrow economic framework on the whole of Europe that without any serious offsetting policies, which are not offered in the treaty, unemployment will increase savagely in the less competitive regions. Wales is an example of where that will happen.
  Within the existing nation states, changing levels of competitiveness have a different impact on different regions. They mostly result in changing levels of employment and unemployment. Within the context of an EC regime of monetary union, a worsening of member countries' competitive position will inevitably lead to rising unemployment unless there are offsetting interventionist policies directed especially at the weaker regions of those member states.
  In the absence of such interventionist policies, we have clearly seen how even the ERM's limited monetary union contributed to the deflation of the United Kingdom economy and a hike in unemployment towards 3 million in the past two years of membership. In existing nation states' monetary unions there is substantial Government intervention of one type or another. It often takes the form of supply-side policies such as active regional and industrial programmes and redistributive budgets. Even if, as we have regrettably seen in Britain in the past 14 years, such policies are not pursued with the necessary vigour, national Governments still appropriate and spend about 40 per cent. of national income. Therefore, to some extent, fiscal policy redistributes income between the most prosperous and the less prosperous regions.
  How does it do that? Regions with rising unemployment automatically receive a fiscal stimulus through a boost in benefit payments and a reduction in tax revenues. That is a type of automatic stabilising mechanism. Of course, in some cases, much more formal redistributive mechanisms operate, such as those between the states in Germany.
  The implications are clear. If we support monetary union, the inescapable logic is to argue for much larger centralised European budgets and/or—preferably both—automatic redistributive mechanisms as well as highly interventionist regional and industrial policies. Without them, monetary union will be a reactionary step. We are already seeing the effect.
  That is one of the central problems of the Maastricht treaty. It provides neither the redistributive nor the supply-side mechanisms to counter the harmful effects of monetary union and its impact on the less competitive regions.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but will he acknowledge that nothing in the treaty rules out such a supply-side policy should it be decided by the Community collectively? The Commission, notably, the President of the Commission, has proposed exactly such a reflationary policy to get the whole European economy going and to tackle the problem of unemployment. Nothing in the treaty rules that out; it is a matter for the Governments of the Community to pursue such a policy.
  Mr. Hain: On the contrary. With all due respect to my hon. Friend, everything in the treaty rules that out. The economic deficit constraints, the monetarist regime and the 3 per cent. limit on budget deficit are driving us towards meeting the convergence criteria for monetary

  549
  union which will block any hope of the redistributive supply-side mechanism which he appears to support. The crucial point is that monetary union in the European Community will be expected to operate without a central European budget of any significant size.
  Even under the recent settlement, itself substantially reduced from Jacques Delors' original proposals, the EC budget will be only 1·15 per cent. of total Community gross national product. Frankly, that is petty cash. It provides no basis for regenerating the economies of the deprived peripheral and less competitive regions Most studies suggest that at least a fourfold increase in the European Community's budget would he required to meet the scale of the challenge. Even if we ignore how the existing budget is allocated, for example the totally inadequate amount that is devoted to reducing regional imbalances and the hugely wasteful agricultural subsidies, it is totally inadequate to provide the effective redistributive mechanisms that we need at the level of the Community.
  8 pm
  Mr. Macdonald: Will my hon. Friend take on board the fact that the 3 per cent. deficit levels are not absolutely fixed? Community Governments can decide whether to apply them in the light of prevailing economic circumstances. Obviously, when they are as my hon. Friend describes, it would be sensible for those Governments to take a flexible view. Even in terms of pursuing national policies, national Governments will inevitably run into constraints in trying to run large-scale deficits year upon year. Such problems need to be tackled collectively across the Community rather than by individual nation states.
  Mr. Hain: Again, I do not want to pursue that point too far, but I need to answer my hon. Friend's point. If the 3 per cent. limit and the 60 per cent. limit and so on are meaningless, why are they in the treaty? If they do not add up to a row of beans, why are they set in concrete in the treaty? Indeed, they are set down so explicitly that, if one does not meet them, one is fined. There is actually a provision in the treaty to fine defaulting member states for not meeting them. I do not accept my hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are discussing a legal document, not just a statement that was made by a politician on a wet Sunday afternoon?
  Mr. Hain: Indeed, we are discussing a legally binding document which binds all member states, if they are to meet the criteria for acceptance into the final stage of monetary union, precisely to meet those convergence criteria, with all the horrendous consequences for areas such as the south Wales valleys in terms of cuts in public expenditure on a colossal scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) probably underestimated when he mentioned the figure of £12 billion. The figure is more likely to be £25 billion at the current level of budget deficit.
  Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that the protocol is not only in the treaty but in the Bill? We will actually write it into our legislation as well.
  Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a valid, valuable point which enthusiastic and somewhat blinkered supporters of the treaty ignore at their peril, and certainly at the peril of my constituents.
  Mr. Cash: On the hon. Gentleman's point about the amount of payments that are being made into the European Community and the remark by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on the fact that this is a legal framework, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole arrangement is highly centralising and fundamentally undemocratic and authoritarian, as a result of which, the greater the competencies become, the more money will be sucked into the centre, with corresponding decline in the democratic quality for those who, for example, might become involved in the Committee of the Regions or whatever, precisely because the main power will lie with those who run the system? That is the absolute acme of all parliamentary arrangements that have taken place over the century. At the bottom line, the authority and the power go where the money is, and it will be an undemocratic and authoritarian system.
  Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point to which I shall return, but I wish to develop the point that I was making.
  In the absence of a central budget and redistributive supply side mechanisms and a highly interventionist policy from the European level, monetary union will have a deflationary impact on less competitive regions, leading to increased unemployment, especially for regions such as Wales which, in EC parlance, are regarded as being on the periphery. On top of that, the transitional terms for monetary union require policies that will impose deflationary—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying rather wide of the amendments. I have given him some latitude, and I think that he recognised that in some of his earlier comments, but I ask him to address the amendments.
  Mr. Hain: I am grateful for your guidance, Dame Janet. All that I plead in mitigation is that I was led astray by hon. Members taking me down certain byways.
  The Chairman: That is a well-used argument, but it is not accepted by the Chair.
  Mr. Hain: Indeed, Dame Janet.
  I am sure that you, Dame Janet, will accept that my next point is absolutely crucial in the context of regional funds and regional policy generally. There is a real danger of European Community growth and wealth being concentrated at its hub—that meets the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)—the hub being western Germany, France, the Benelux countries, perhaps northern Italy and perhaps the south-east of England if we are lucky. Meanwhile, the periphery, including areas such as Wales, will decline. Unless there are very strong and heavily funded EC regional investment policies, vast areas of the European Community will become poorer. Following capital to the hub, political power will he increasingly centralised, as sure as night follows day. Those economic imperatives undermine the importance that the modern European Community rightly ascribes in theory to the regions. In one sense, the political thrust of European Community evolution focuses on the centre and

  551
  the regions, with the national level receding in influence. Links between Brussels, for example, and Catalonia or Wales, if we are lucky, might override links with Madrid or London. EC structural funds are geared towards such redistribution or compensation at the regional level. The problem is that the economic imperatives that I have described mean that we have an enormously centralising force which is winning over the regionalising tendency which is in the heart of the Community. The centrifugal forces at work in the Community are triumphing over the centripetal forces and dwarfing them completely.
  Mr. Jenkin: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will allow me to amplify his point about the economic effects of the monetary union that he has described in relation to the regional policies that we are discussing. The regional policy that he describes and would espouse is largely practised in Germany, where there is a monetarist central bank. I am in favour of monetarism—perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not—but he is absolutely right to point out the effect of a monetarist central policy if it is not answerable in some way to the economic demands. That has been demonstrated in the failure of the exchange rate mechanism.
  Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which was caused by German monetary policy being imposed on south Wales, is perhaps a portent. I am surprised that Opposition Front-Bench Members espouse that policy.
  Mr. Hain: I do not think that the unemployment that has been imposed on south Wales is entirely to do with the European Community. Much of it is to do with the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of having a regional banking system. We do not have one in Britain. Again, we could address that topic on another occasion. If we are to have regions that are autonomous, powerful and viable in their own right, we need to decentralise our financial structures as well. It is important also that member states have structures of government which mesh into the regionalised Europe. It is significant that, until now at least, the most successful EC country, Germany, has had a federal structure, with significant autonomy delegated to the Lander.
  The case for decentralisation is as much democratic as economic. We should insist on an active regional policy for the European Community and democratic methods to facilitate it, including devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English regions. We should press for a strengthening of the Committee of the Regions. They are not optional extras; they are the vital means of ensuring that the regional dimension is not a one-way conduit for hand-outs from the centre but an active channel for empowering outlying areas and nations.
  We should also insist on a highly interventionist European investment bank. The aims of such a bank are described in articles 198d and I98e on page 55 of the treaty. While the treaty sets up the structure for the bank, there is no real content to it. There is no indication of the powers that such a bank would have or what its potential could realise.
  In Britain in the 1980s, we have seen beyond dispute that investment decisions are much too important to be
  552
  left to the market. The market has palpably failed to modernise the manufacturing infrastructure. We need a powerful investment bank at the British and European levels, otherwise poorer regions will be left behind. Against that desperate need, regional support and aid has been cut massively in Britain, especially in assisted areas where such support and aid have been slashed.
  Since revision of the assisted areas map in 1984, regional financial assistance has fallen from £518 million to £265 million—a cut of 50 per cent. That cut has had an enormous impact on areas such as south Wales, especially the deprived and neglected valleys. Given the size of the planned cuts in the Department of Trade and Industry's expenditure over the next three years, it is expected that the Government's record on regional assisted areas cuts will deepen.
  It is important to place this debate in the context of an active regional policy at not simply the European but the British level. For example, what do we find in Wales? Wales has had massive cuts in regional aid since 1979. In the decade to 1991, regional assistance to industry in Wales declined by 58·3 per cent. The valleys in south Wales have been subject to savage job cuts following colliery closures and the collapse of local manufacturing industry. Regional policy expenditure in those valleys fell by 44 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1991–92. That period coincided with the much vaunted valleys initiative programme. Over the same period, regional development grants to the valleys were cut by 86·8 per cent.
  When we examine the European dimension to answer the question of what extent the Committee of the Regions, its structural funds or whatever, addressed the glaring shortcomings in British policy, we find that they do not address the shortcomings at any serious level. Partly because of those shortcomings, adult male unemployment in the valleys increased by 11·2 per cent. between October 1988 and October 1992 and now stands at 19 per cent., compared with 13·5 per cent. for the whole of Wales and 13·6 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Yet, against that desperate background, we find that the economic consequences of the Maastricht treaty will make the situation worse.
  8.15 pm
  I concede that the establishment of the Committee of the Regions is a step forward. It will have advisory status. It will have more than 200 members, 24 of whom will be from the United Kingdom, and it will also have substitute or alternate members. All the members will be appointed—not elected—for four years by the European Council acting unanimously on proposals from the member states. The term of office is renewable, so it could be a jobs-for-life syndrome if we are not careful.
  The committee will elect its own chair and officers for two-year terms, but the rules and procedure will go to the Council for approval. Everything will be done on the say-so of the European Council or the Council of Ministers. The Committee of the Regions will be shepherded by the Council but it will be able to meet on its own initiative.
  All that the Committee will do is offer opinions; it will not have any powers to speak of. Effectively, it will be a talking shop. One could call it the organ grinder's monkey's monkey in the European context. We need a Committee of the Regions which is powerful.

  553
  When we examine the impact of the committee's regional policy on Wales, we find that it does not meet the scale of the challenge or the needs of our community. When we specifically examine the opportunities for Wales under the committee's proposals, we find that, despite the fact that the Maastricht treaty suggested that membership should comprise elected representatives of local and regional authorities, the Secretary of State for Wales intends that the Welsh places will be filled by unelected nominees.
  The Secretary of State suggested that he might be one of the members. He is flying in the face of the clear precedent which was established, for example, at the consultative standing conference of regional and local authorities in Europe. It has been the case for many years that elected representatives take their seats at that conference. The European Commission has made it clear that the treaty should be applied uniformly across Europe and that Britain should nominate delegates in line with other countries. In a letter sent to Thomas Mega hy in October, the President of the Commission said:
  "The Commission is of the opinion that considering the functions attributed to the Committee of the Regions, the said Committee should consist of elected representatives."
  That is the reason why it is important for local authority representatives at county and district levels in Wales to elect their representatives to the Committee of the Regions.
  It is important to remind ourselves that, if the British Government persist in nominating their own sectarian appointees, they will renege on a ministerial promise made to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) in a discussion in the House on 6 December 1991:
  "Mr. Caborn: Can we take it that elected members will be representing the United Kingdom on that body, but the formal distribution of that representation has not yet been worked out?
  Mr. Key: That is how I understand it.".—[Official Report, 6 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 562.]
  In other words, the Minister was saying that he accepted that elected representatives would be members of the Committee of the Regions. We are now invited to accept that that was never the Government's policy.
  The Committee of the Regions is supposed to correct the democratic deficit in the European Community. However, if the Secretary of State nominates his placement from Wales, that will make a complete mockery of correcting the democratic deficit. It is neither democratic nor does it correct the deficit. What could happen? The Secretary of State could nominate people from Wales such as the businessman who reportedly acted as his chauffeur during the general election campaign and then was appointed to two Welsh quangos as a result.
  In Wales, the British Government has spurned the democratic rights of local people and put Conservative stooges on many of the 80 or so quangos which now exist in Wales. That process is likely to continue unless we have a complete change of policy and the Government accept that they should conform to the rest of the Community's practices.
  Mr. John Gunnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister was a little one-sided in the examples he chose to illustrate the question of representation? Shortly after I attended the assembly of European regions, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) suggested that he would represent Wales. The suggestion was greeted with derision by not only the Welsh
  554
  members but by all members who were present. Members from France, Spain, Italy and Germany took the view that it was a completely nonsensical interpretation of the Committee of the Regions. The Minister was selective in the countries which he chose to use as examples because the countries which I mentioned will have elected representatives from the regions.
  Mr. Hain: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point. I remind the Committee that Wales is entitled to at least two representatives on that committee. We should have a ballot of all Welsh district and county councillors so that we have representation from mid and north Wales and not just from the industrial south.
  Above all, we should address the democratic deficit problem not just in Europe but in Wales, with a Welsh assembly acting as a focus for contact between the EC and local government. That would ensure that the needs of Wales, in terms of the opportunities offered by EC regional and structural funds, were taken up. That would give us programmes for economic development, investment in infrastructure and in education, training, health, housing and so on, which would genuinely ensure that Wales did not fall behind as a forgotten area of Europe.
  While the Committee of the Regions is welcome as a regional voice in the EC, we should go much further. We should create a bicameral European Parliament with a second chamber consisting of members of national Parliaments and regional assemblies such as a Wales assembly. They should not be national government appointees so as to ensure that they represented their domestic electorates.
  The second chamber should have consultative rights and be able to scrutinise legislation from the European Parliament and suggest amendments to it before it was finally agreed through the process of co-decision with the Council of Ministers. The advantage of such a second chamber would be to build in a checking mechanism of elected members from the nations and regions of Europe. That is probably more important for the regions, to help exert a countervailing force on the enormously powerful centralising tendencies of the EC. That argument is supported by the increasingly influential assembly of European regions, which represents over 200 regions throughout Europe, and not just in the EC.
  Maastricht puts economics before politics, monetary union before democracy. It puts the cart before the horse and, in that context, areas such as Wales and other outlying regions will be forgotten and left far behind as the rush towards monetary union and centralised economic power remains the dominant force.
  Mr. Cash: It is an interesting experience for me to speak following the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), because, while he and I come to our politics from a completely different philosophy, much of what he said—on the central question of the direction in which the Community is going, the centralising tendencies, the undemocratic and authoritarian nature of the central banking arrangements, the impact that all of that has on the poor and the way in which the whole system is being constructed—struck a chord across the party divide.
  For those reasons, the arrangements prescribed in the Maastricht treaty have been found wanting. That has become clear in our debates. Precisely because there is a convergence of view in all parts of the Committee,

  555
  mitigated only by the collusion between the two Front Benches, the truth is being revealed. I said in a recent book that the truth is available to all if only people would listen to what was being said.
  Yet again, the Press Gallery is almost empty. I appreciate that the journalists need a meal, but I hope that at least some of them will read the speech of the hon. Member for Neath, in the knowledge that his views and those of many of my hon. Friends are of great importance to their constituents and the readership of the newspapers.
  I commend an article by Dr. Jeremy Leaman in The Guardian, in which he pointed out the dangers. That newspaper is not noted for its enthusiasm for policies that might be promoted on the Government Benches. The Guardian has had the guts to state in its columns the truth about what is going on and the way in which a monolithic structure is being created, with cosmetic ploys such as the Committee of the Regions being thrown into the pot to divert attention from what is really happening.
  On 1 July 1991, at a critical stage in the movement towards the signing of the Maastricht treaty, the Prime Minister said that he did not believe that it was a practical proposition to proceed immediately to monetary union throughout the Community. He want on:
  "Given the differing economic performances of the countries of the Community, monetary union would lead to massive regional unemployment, a massive collapse in asset values, a massive amount of unemployment generally, a massive population movement and huge demands for an increase in structural funds to deal with those problems. It is not a practical proposition until there have been various convergences." —[Official Report, 1 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 32.]
  If ever a case was made for abandoning this dud product of a Maastricht treaty, that was it. The case could not have been put better. On every one of those tests, since 1 July 1991 every aspect has been brought not just to fruition but exacerbated by the policies that have been pursued in pursuance of the treaty. As a result of what happened at Edinburgh, for example, the situation has been made worse.
  I will not go into all the details. We need consider only some of what has happened. On unemployment, there are projections of at least 25 million unemployed in Europe in the next few years, with increases in the United Kingdom and with massive reductions in asset values, and since 1 July 1991 they have been plummeting. On every criterion given by the Prime Minister, there is every reason to abandon what is proposed. That applies even to those who were well-intentioned in the first place and believed that Maastricht was a good idea. We should abandon the whole futile exercise, because it is diverting attention from the real problems of the United Kingdom and of the EC, which is beset in all directions with massive dislocation.
  That applies, too, to eastern Europe, where terrible problems confront those trying to rebuild their democracies. In any event, they would not get the benefit of the cohesion funds, should they ever be introduced. We face terrible problems in Bosnia and Yugoslavia from the military and foreign affairs point of view.
  Mr. Budgen: Perhaps my hon. Friend will say a kind word to the sad and unfortunate people of Denmark, whose currency is under attack, whose interest rates have had to be increased and who will be realising that they, too, are about to pay a yet higher price to achieve
  556
  convergence? They will be joining the French, who are also paying a high price to achieve convergence. The peoples of Europe have had visited on them a terrible deflationary plague which the united establishments of their countries have told them that they must bear, and they are beginning to suffer grievously.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend could not have put it better. As I said in an earlier intervention, the treaty represents a deliberate policy of creating unemployment, and must lead to massive cuts in public expenditure. Some may think that that is a good idea. I cannot believe that the people of Denmark are thinking that. Nor can the people of France, who are equally affected by what is going on in the markets, be looking forward to the prospect of their situation getting worse. None of that will be compensated for by the cohesion funds. They will not get the money promised to them, because it is not there. Nor is there even the will or ability to make the payments.
  While we are considering the exchange rate mechanism and its impact on countries affected by the chain reaction that is occurring throughout the markets, let us not overlook the fact that we experienced dreadful deflationary results, which eventually led to our having to come out of the ERM.
  The lessons to be learned from trying to engage in the kind of engineering that this cohesion fund proposal represents will not make a ha'p'orth of difference to the people of Europe who will be so badly affected by the mega changes being made and by the authorisation of undemocratic manipulation of funds throughout Europe and through the proposals contained in the central banking arrangements.
  8.30 pm
  That brings me to the European investment bank. I discovered to my considerable surprise from the international affairs and defence section of the Library that the bank has not been referred to in debates in either the House of Lords or the House of Commons over the past two years; nor has it found any recent press releases by United Kingdom Government Departments about the bank. Indeed, it went on to say that a search for some consideration of the bank by any Select Committee yielded a similar negative response. There was no information about the bank in the House of Lords, the House of Commons, Select Committees or, apparently, Government Departments.
  I make reference to this because the European investment bank is not a tiddly little bank. Its equity base is approximately as that of Barclays or the Deutschebank. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a governor of this bank, and the United Kingdom owns 19·15 per cent. of its capital—the same for Germany, France and Italy. Its outstanding loans to customers are £50 billion, and the United Kingdom is committed to subscribing not only its share of the equity, which is in its capital and accumulating reserves about £1·5 billion—no inconsiderable sum—but also £7·24 billion more capital by 1998.
  That represents about £10 billion invested in this bank, so we may well be interested to know what has been going on and to what extent the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a governor of this bank, has been watching what has been happening and what is likely to happen in the immediate future.
  Sir Richard Body: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the forecast for public sector borrowing requirement, there seems to be no allowance for that appalling figure? Is it to be added to our PSBR requirement, or is there to be some creative accounting whereby it will not be included? If it is to be included in the PSBR, it will have the most catastrophic effect on our fiscal policies, and that will cause a great deal of inflation.
  Mr. Cash: As ever, my hon. Friend has an unerring way of hitting a very good target, because the question I wanted to put to the Minister of State was just that—whether this further £7·24 billion which is committed to the European investment bank by 1998 has been included in the Treasury's PSBR forecast. If so—I look at him because I hope that he will be able to answer this question —under what heading will it come? We are entitled to ask that question, and we are entitled to a proper answer.
  Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Member's sense of shock at discovering that about the European investment bank rather goes against his concern previously about uplifting the more backward regions of the Community. Surely he should be delighted at the scale of investment undertaken by the European investment bank and by its commitment to its charter of contributing to development, integration and social cohesion of all the member states. Perhaps he can draw a parallel between the concept behind the bank and the plans put forward by the Labour party at the last election for a national investment bank which would carry out a similar task in the United Kingdom. Is not what he describes—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Vlichael Morris): Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch my eye. I hope that he is not making a speech already.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman has shown why he, one who is taking such a proactive part in promoting the Maastricht treaty on his side of the Committee, is falling out so badly with so many colleagues in this argument. I have to say—
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend agree that this is a very good example of the tremendously exciting prospect for socialism which is to be found in the Mastricht treaty? This is a very good example of a state investment bank which is specifically set up to provide a quasi-political alternative to the harsh and disagreeable logic of the market. There is no doubt that those hon. Gentlemen in the Labour party who do not regard sovereignty as important and who have abandoned the working-class patriotism which many of us had so much admired in the Labour party were quite right in saying that this is an important socialist measure, which ought to give more control and more domination to socialist civil servants and middle-class interferers.
  Mr. Cash: As ever, I am indebted to the intervention of my hon. Friend, because he too hits the target unerringly. Following what was said by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), I should also like to know whether the Minister of State, who is sitting here but may not be listening, is aware that, as well as being the biggest single net contributor to the Community budget, we are also subsidising the industries of Italy, for example. That is a
  558
  country with a GDP per head greater than our own through the European investment bank. These are the realities.
  Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Member aware that, if the treaty was anything like a socialist programme, no one would be more enthusiastic about it than I? Will he accept that, like many socialists, we consider national sovereignty to be extremely important, and do not intend to retreat from that in any way, but the Bill and the treaty are also deeply deflationary and the articles which set out the limits on public spending and the rest would mean that, no matter what cosmetic covering is given to the regions and the rest, there will be far less money and far more pain and hardship, as well as continuing mass unemployment.
  Mr. Cash: It is a remarkable state of affairs that there is across the Floor of the House a pattern of practical common sense that emerges to show that there is a genuine national and European interest in this. I would have thought that nobody would want to have massive unemployment or provisions that lead to difficulties for many people who are worse off. The tradition of the Conservative party has always been to try to strike the right balance between provision for the less well-off and the generation of wealth. What is contained in the treaty and the arrangements will produce exactly the opposite results of what is claimed for it.
  The Maastricht treaty is like a hall of mirrors. Every time they put forward one version, one can guarantee that the distortion in the mirror will throw up the opposite response. It is based upon a whole tissue of deceit and lies, and will lead, unfortunately, to a serious dislocation of the Community which those like me, who genuinely want it to work effectively, will find will come to nothing.
  How, for example, can it be that we are subsidising Italian industry through the European investment bank? It is very simple. The United Kingdom contributes 19 per cent. of the bank's capital, but Italy takes a staggering 40 per cent. of its intra-Community lending. That is how we are effectively subsidising Italian industry, and that must be borne in mind. I hope that the Minister is listening.
  Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend keeps talking about Italian industry, but is he satisfied that all the money is going there? Where is it actually going? Some unkind people say that the Italian attitude to public finance is slightly different from our own. Unkind people—especially those from the Court of Auditors—have suggested that, if all the trees that are collecting subsidy in Italy were really there, there would not be room for a single road, playing field or open space in the whole of Italy. I do not know whether any of that is true, but we keep hearing—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech, not an intervention. He has great experience of the House and approached this evening in a more measured way. I hope that the initial harmony that he produced at the beginning of the sitting will continue. He must not make a speech.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend's remarks are borne out by the Court of Auditors' strictures on the European investment bank. Although my hon. Friend was on a bit of a fishing expedition, he is completely right. Grave reasons for an inquiry into the way that the bank has been operating and allocating its priorities have arisen from the

  559
  Court of Auditors' reports. It is not merely that subsidy ends up in Italian industries, but it is well known that there is massive corruption in Italy, so we have every reason to be concerned that 40 per cent. of all that money goes into the Italian economy.
  Perhaps the Minister, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who is a governor of the bank—would seek an explanation for its apparent favouritism towards Italy. Is that what we regard as being at the heart of Europe? It does not seem to make a great deal of sense. Can the Minister also tell us whether the further £7·24 billion capital committed by the United Kingdom has been included in the public sector borrowing requirement forecasts?
  Why are a Conservative Government, who believe in privatisation, committing billions of pounds of desperately needed taxpayers' money to a public sector bank whose activities could be better carried out by an ordinary private sector bank?
  Sir Richard Body: Does my hon. Friend not detect some absurdity? We are carrying out a long privatisation programme. One of the arguments that we advance to our constituents is that it will help to reduce Government borrowing, and that it is to our advantage and that of the taxpayer to sell off some assets. Is it not the case that all the money that we claw in from the privatisation of British Rail, the prisons, or anything else, will go straight out to the European investment bank? If my hon. Friend is right —I am sure he is—that money will be passed on to Italy.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Cash: Absolutely. As I said during the debates on trans-European networks and energy, I am deeply concerned about the way in which the moneys are being distributed throughout Europe. There is a direct inter-action between the subsidies paid, the structural funds, which have not been mentioned much today and are growing massively, the cohesion funds—to all intents and purposes they are the same thing—and the concept of a social wage, which is the other side of the equation. In addition, as I said in the debate on the Railways Bill money resolution, massive subsidies are going to French, German and other European railways.
  I am not in favour of subsidies, but I am damned if we are going to be left high and dry when other countries are being subsidised to compete against us unfairly. That applies to the pit closures. Our miners are being driven out of work, while subsidies are pouring into the German coal industry. Our miners and our mines are being put at an impossible disadvantage—including Trentham colliery, which has 300 million tonnes of coal under my constituency. All that is being done in the name of benefiting the British people, through subscribing to and ratifying the treaty.
  There is no point on the political spectrum where I can see any benefits to the United Kingdom from the treaty. The more one looks at it, the worse it becomes. The same applies to the treaty's omissions.
  The cohesion and structural funds and the common agricultural policy must be seen as a whole. The day after the set-aside arrangements were announced as a great victory by our Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Court of Auditors said that it would be the
  560
  biggest fraudulent honey pot ever devised. That is not a sensible way to run a whelk stall, let alone the European Community, and it is certainly not the way to run the United Kingdom. That is why I object profoundly to the treaty—not on theological or constitutional grounds, although I freely admit that that is one way to describe what is happening.
  I am concerned about the practical considerations and the fact that we are pouring money down the drain, that there is no accountability for the moneys and that the bank and the arrangements devised for it are benefiting other countries at our expense. No deal in the treaty is of any use to the British people. It is all being done in aid of the so-called "one country" that I saw advertised when I went to the Berlaymont before it got asbestosis.
  If the Government believe that the investment bank is doing useful work on a Community footing—I have difficulty in understanding how that can be—will they sell off their investments in it and reinvest the proceeds in a bank of the sort that has been mentioned by Opposition Members, which they say would benefit British industry? If we are not getting the benefit and the money is all going to benefit the Italians and others, let us at least make arrangements to ensure that it comes to us. Then the British taxpayer would at least get some value for money and British industry would get the help that it so badly needs.
  I am not in favour of any of those socialist banks, but at least I see the merit of the argument of focusing upon the interests of our constituents rather than people in other parts of the Community.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: I call Sir Russell Johnston.
  Mr. Cash: I was giving way.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman had sat down.
  Mr. Cash: No, I was giving way.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman did not say, "I give way to the hon. Gentleman." I was listening attentively.
  Mr. Cash: No, but I made this gesture.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been making that gesture most of the evening, and it has little relevance to the Chair. I am sorry, but the rules of the House are clear. The hon. Gentleman did not say, "I give way." He sat down, and I called Sir Russell Johnston.
  Sir Richard Body: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I often do not say, "I give way." Often I merely indicate.
  The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Stafford is genuinely saying that he did not give way, I accept that he may continue. However, he has been in the House for some years and he is using his notes copiously, so perhaps he is not totally concentrating on what he is saying. Therefore, I call Mr. William Cash, but I ask him to recognise that he sat down and that, frankly, I am being more than generous in allowing him to continue. I hope that he recognises that.
  Mr. Cash: I am indeed most grateful to you, Mr. Morris.
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. This is a genuine effort to seek understanding. Are you saying that we should know that in future, if we give way, we should use the words, "I give way to the hon. Member"?
  The Chairman: That is the normal courtesy of the Committee. It is not a definitive rule that can be found in "Erskine May", but it is the normal courtesy from one colleague to another, and I hope that hon. Members will follow it.
  Mr. Cash: I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. Morris. That was a misunderstanding.
  I want to take up one more point with regard to the European investment bank. We are told that the President of the Board of Trade has great enthusiasm for this treaty. He is the Minister responsible for small and medium-sized enterprises, and his Department's deputy secretary is a director of the investment bank.
  Will the Minister ascertain from his right hon. Friend and explain how it is that, just as we have something verging on the scandalous with regard to the Italian situation, as I have just described, in 1991 one of the wealthiest countries in the Community—France—accounted for 62 per cent. by the number of loans and 23 per cent. by value of the investment bank lending to small and medium-sized enterprises in the European Community? The corresponding figures for the United Kingdom—I hope that the Minister will not only listen to this but also tell me how this can be—were a mere 1 per cent. by number of loans and 3 per cent. by value.
  You may now understand, Mr. Morris, why I was concerned to be able to continue with what I have to say, because there are a number of questions that need to be answered here, particularly having regard to the dire position of the British economy at the present time. Furthermore, we are contributing 19 per cent. of the investment bank's capital and are committed to contributing a further £7·24 billion to the European investment bank by 1998.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Cash: If my hon. Friend wishes me to give way, I shall be only too delighted to do so.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is being a little harsh on the investment bank; he ought to be thankful for small mercies, by comparison with the cohesion funds, from which we will get absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Cash: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the cohesion funds, but I do not in any way agree that it is at all a satisfactory state of affairs in the light of the evidence that I have just presented to the Committee with regard to the investment bank.
  The cohesion funds, of course, are essentially socialist in concept and character. I do not for one minute hold it against Opposition Members that, in a democratic country, they fight for what they believe in. However, I detect considerable enthusiasm on the other side of the Committee for a bit more of the socialism that brings benefits to the British people.
  When so many of our regions have massive unemployment, which is increasing as a result of the policies with regard to such aberrations as the exchange
  562
  rate mechanism, hon. Gentlemen are beginning to ask themselves some questions about the good sense of their Front-Bench colleagues in subscribing to this treaty.
  Mr. Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cash: I will indeed.
  Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a few weeks, we may be asked to vote for some increase in taxes, and that, of course, we must willingly do if it is necessary? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the public realise that all this extra money is to be spent in Sicily and Sardinia rather than in Stroud and Stafford, the British public may not have such a happy view of cohesion funds?
  Mr. Cash: I certainly believe that the British taxpayer will become increasingly concerned about this. Not only is the central concept collapsing, but it is becoming highly dangerous to raise people's expectations and then have them dashed. While one hopes, quite reasonably, to help people in other countries, to be bound into a legal framework with the requirement to make these payments irrespective of the conditions in one's own industries does not seem to make much sense.
  It is for these practical reasons that so many people in the country, and so many of our hon. Friends, agree with us, irrespective sometimes of their voting record, and tell us behind the scenes that they see a great deal in what we are saying. We reckon that a significant number of hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with us, in line with the general population.
  The cohesion fund concept involves the transfer of these funds to other countries, primarily to enable their businesses to compete with ours. We are having a quite difficult enough time already with the amount of unemployment and the problems facing British companies, which employ the British work force, without making these massive contributions and effectively helping to set up, through the subsidies that are siphoned off and then paid through the back door to, for example, some of the Spanish regions and companies—competitive enterprises. We have the example of the steel casting industry, which is effectively closing down companies in the United Kingdom. What kind of lunacy is this?
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Cash: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Marlow: On the cohesion fund, I put a point to my right hon. Friend, and I know that he is thinking about it, and I hope that he will answer it later in the debate. Article 130b says most clearly:
  "Member States shall conduct their economic policies…to attain the objectives set out in Article 130a".
  Article 130a is a key article. It comes under the heading "Economic and social cohesion" and says that we should all
  "aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions".
  Effectively, this means that we must block our more efficient industries so that we can spend money to make the industries of other countries more competitive with ours. If we do not do that, we will not reduce the disparities. So we are committing ourselves to redundancies and closures of factories so that factories can be opened in Sardinia and Corsica.
  Mr. Cash: That is absolutely right. If this were just a parlour game—Monopoly, or something of that kind—I could understand that people would not take it too seriously. But I sincerely hope that the people of this country will be given full information about the sort of situation that is being generated by these arrangements.
  The cohesion fund arrangements, which are quite clearly set out in the articles to which my hon. Friend has referred, are creating deliberate disparities, which are avoidable if we do not ratify the treaty. I look to the Minister with some astonishment, but nevertheless ask him the question, as I have asked question after question with regard to the whole of this treaty. Will he please give us some answers?
  We are not inventing all this. These are facts and figures: this is evidence—what a Committee stage is all about. We are putting simple, moderate questions. We are not trying to be awkward or difficult. We are simply looking at the evidence and asking for answers. But we are getting absolutely nothing. Thus, the democratic nature of these proceedings is being undermined. If we do not receive answers to our questions, people will be left wondering, after the treaty has been ratified, how on earth, and for what reason, this was ever done in the first place.
  One of the objectives of Committee proceedings—
  The Chairman: Order. I am well aware of the objective of Committee proceedings. This amendment is specifically about cohesion—a subject that the hon. Gentleman left some minutes ago.
  9 pm
  Mr. Cash: I was talking specifically about the impact on British business and about the significantly adverse effect that the cohesion funds will have on that business. Surely that matter is of interest not only to members of the Committee but also to people outside.
  Mr. Hoon: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the cohesion fund, which is limited to the fields of the environment and trans-European networks, will have an adverse effect on British business?
  Mr. Cash: It is very simple. The arrangements for trans-European networks are based upon assumptions about the subsidies that are applicable in other countries but will not be so readily available here.
  Mr. Horn indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not want to be taken too far down this road, as it was discussed in a previous debate. I need say only that the facts speak for themselves. In effect, we are being taken for a very substantial ride. That being the case, it is important that this part of the treaty should not be ratified.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am sure that I shall be forgiven if I do not follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) with his various apocalyptic visions.
  There is no doubt that this debate covers a central area of argument for those who, like me, believe very much in the Community, as well as those who distrust it and those who, like the hon. Member for Stafford, although he occasionally claims otherwise, oppose it. It is certainly untrue to say that the founding fathers were interested only in the wealth that could be generated by a large Common Market. They were all deeply wedded to the
  564
  political concept of distributivism—the need to intervene in the market to prevent wealth concentrations and to act positively to ensure that the people on the periphery of the Community would share in the wealth that greater economic activity and efficiency created at the centre.
  From the very outset, no one had any illusions about the way in which the golden triangle—London to Paris to Frankfurt—would evolve. People recognise the need to create countervailing forces and the fact that these would have to operate through the institutions of the Community. Likewise, it was recognised that, where technical progress created difficulties in industrial concentrations, the whole Community shared responsibility to help overcome them and to ease the transition to something else. Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), I was in the European Parliament in the years leading up to the establishment of the regional fund in March 1975.
  Coming as I do from the highlands of Scotland, where there is a continual struggle against the problems created by population sparsity, I remember the excitement that greeted this development. The Highlands and Islands Development Board—an idea set out in very far-seeing detail in the Keynesian Liberal yellow book of 1928—was set up by the Labour Government in 1965 and put the highlands in a new context within the United Kingdom. Now the logic was extended to Europe, and there was enormously positive and optimistic feeling abroad. I believe that the feeling was shared in the regions of England and Wales.
  However, the positiveness did not, in the end, quite work out as was hoped. Many things happened in the regions that would not otherwise have happened—I refer in particular to infrastructure projects, but fund allocation was limited, and funds were carved up in advance. The United Kingdom dragged its feet. In a way, it was a classic paradox. Very often people say that Britain must take a lead in this and that Britain must take a lead in that, but the other Community countries gave us the lead on regional policy. The Commissioner responsible was British —indeed, Scottish. He is now the Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was at that time a Labour supporter, and now takes the Liberal Democrat Whip in another place. The regional committee of the European Parliament was chaired by Brits—first, by the Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who, when he spoke, modestly failed to mention that, and later by the Labour Member, the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). Both were active and vigorous. Speaking as an individual Liberal member of that committee, I found their approach both flexible and constructive. However, there were two forces at work at home which made things difficult—they still do to a degree, and still influence many hon. Members and appear in our debates.
  The Labour approach has changed slightly—or more than slightly. Before 1979, there was enormous reluctance to be involved in any Community activity, certainly if there was a danger that it might lead to someone forming the conclusion that the Community was a good thing. Matching funds were sought, about which there was a great reluctance, and additionality was not applied. I wish to ask two or three questions of the Minister about additionality, as it is important.
  At that time there was fierce resistance in the Labour party to direct contact between regions and Brussels as the

  565
  party was not yet in what might be called its devolutionary phase. Likewise, the Conservatives were embarking on their free market crusade and were extremely anti-devolutionary, not just with regard to Scotland and Wales, but local government generally. They were not keen on helping any policy that was state-directed or, worse still, came from Brussels bureaucrats. Secondly, they were adamantly opposed to a meaningful direct relationship being built up between regions and Brussels, and, not surprisingly, they resisted the additionality rule.
  I cannot express the additionality problem more clearly or succinctly than by quoting from the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community on the structural funds. The report, published on 18 May 1988, stated:
  "Additionality was recognised"—
  by the Government—
  "as a difficult concept to enforce. This is the principle that projects or programmes receiving a grant from the Fund are to be given domestic government funding, in addition to—and not in substitution for—existing planned public expenditure. The United Kingdom Government apply additionality on a 'national' not 'local' basis. Although the Funds allocate money to the United Kingdom on the basis of schemes applying for aid, the money is given in a lump sum to the Government, and is not always passed on directly to the applicant. In the case of local government authority receipts from the ERDF, the local authority will receive the Fund grant directly but government departments will reduce the authority's approved capital borrowing programme by a corresponding amount."
  That still continues. The report continued:
  "In the case of aid to industrial projects, supported by the ERDF, the DTI will retain the Fund grant and not pass it on because it will have already disbursed a grant to the firm in the expectation of receiving an ERDF grant to cover the expenditure. Projections of national public expenditure are increased—in anticipation of Fund receipts … Member States can estimate future receipts because the 'quota system'"—
  for a long time, we received 28 per cent.—
  "where each Member State has been allocated … Thus grants are not directed specifically where they are most needed, but rather are seen by the Government as providing a supplement for the national budget in the fields eligible for Fund support."
  That clearly expresses the issue. The report continues:
  "This means that, up till now, 'the vast majority' of United Kingdom schemes applying for ERDF aid would have been implemented anyway, regardless or whether or not they received a grant".
  There was an exception to which they referred and which related to the schemes in Belfast, under the urban renewal regulations, where the Commission and the European Parliament demanded more transparent additionality to ensure extra national support.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: That narrow, unhelpful interpretation of the concept of additionality is still damaging local communities. In my constituency, the Government's interpretation of additionality has harmed local projects such as the Nenaval programme which was set up to help those communities suffering because of decline in the traditional shipbuilding industry.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly our view that the way in which successive British Governments have dealt with the regional fund and the concept of additionality has been disgraceful and harmful to many desirable projects.
  566
  However, it appears that this is all about to change. I am told that the change is entirely due to the tough approach taken by Bruce Millan, formerly Secretary of State for Scotland in the Labour Government, who in April 1991 blocked the RECHAR funds of £100 million for the coal mining areas because he rightly felt that the United Kingdom was using its regional fund money not as additional money but as substitute expenditure. I am told that new guidelines are due by 1 April and I would be most grateful if the Minister could comment on this and perhaps even give us some foretaste of them.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman and I do not have identical views on this and I am grateful to him for giving way. He was talking about substitution. It is true that we have additionality, but there are other aspects of substitution. Community countries can apply for regional funds and other funds from the Community. Obviously, they have to contribute some of their own money, but they can apply for a lot of projects and get large sums of Community money. They might have supported some of those projects anyhow with their own finances, so the money they receive releases within those Community countries funding which they can use on other aspects of policy, perhaps in building up their industrial strength, and that might be to the disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. That is another aspect of substitution.
  Sir Russell Johnston: There are other aspects, but I will not engage in a long argument with the hon. Gentleman about them. The object of regional fund money was to enable countries to do things that they were otherwise unable to do. In that regard the Government have treated it simply as substitute expenditure.
  Mr. Salmond: It will not have escaped hon. Members' notice that we have just been joined by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. It strikes me as a good opportunity for the Minister to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech to clarify the Scottish Office's position on the number of Scottish representatives on the Committee of the Regions.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman anticipates something I will refer to later. I am sure that if the Under-Secretary, who I certainly noticed with his magnificent Edwardian whiskers, wishes to intervene that is fine.
  I would also be grateful if the Minister were able to give us some glimpse of the Government's thinking on how regional funding will be handled in future. There is a school of thought that there should be much more direct region-to-Commission contact and that the money should not be carved up nationally but should be dispensed by the Commission dealing directly with the regions according to criteria agreed by the European Parliament and the European Council, possibly even on a package basis with the regions being allocated a sum of money and allowed to decide themselves what to do with it. One could call that subsidiarity. The Government say that they favour that, and I should like some comment from the Minister.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I do not understand why we have to give large sums of our money to the Commission, or whoever is dispensing it in return

  567
  for the Commission giving us a little of it back for our regions. I cannot understand what the national interest is in that particular equation.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Again, the hon. Gentleman is being impatient, and I do not blame him for that. What he says just precedes what I am about to say.
  I want to look at the anti-Community argument, that this is not something that the Community should do at all and that it is nonsensical to pay money to the Community which it then decides, after passing it through various bureaucratic sieves, to give back to us. [Interruption.] I trust that the hon. Gentleman to whom I gave way will do me the courtesy of listening to me, since I did him the courtesy of giving way and am now answering his argument.
  The Community regional policy can theoretically be an interference in a country's national regional policy, and I suppose that there are those who feel that no external agency should override national priorities. I understand this perfectly well. But is it an override? The money is additional, if it is treated additionally; it is intended to do what the individual state feels unable to undertake because of other pressures and priorities. Why, if the Government cannot help north Wales, Cornwall or the highlands, should they not benefit from our general wealth-creating Community membership to get the things that they want done? That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not listening to the first part of what he said, but I have been listening very carefully to what he has just said. My point is that if you want something called regional policy, why not give it to the regions direct? Why recycle it round the European institutions and get back less than you put in, since it is only the Germans and the British who are contributing in net terms anyway? And yet we get back less for our regions. Why not give it to them direct? Why put it through this recycling process by which we get back less than we put in?
  Sir Russell Johnston: The problem was that the Government either did not want to give it, or did not give it or was unable to give it, one or the other. I would assert the whole thing much more positively. If we are to have a Community with a social purpose, we must all accept that we have responsibilities beyond our own borders.
  That brings me to the cohesion fund because, like the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who opened the debate, we on this Bench are supportive of the cohesion fund and of the cohesion of the Community. Indeed, the proposals in the cohesion fund are more limited in many ways than one might have felt necessary, and they differ from the original propositions. Nevertheless what is proposed is useful and positive. One is providing assistance for environmental projects, and that benefits not only the region or country where it proceeds but Europe more widely. One is assisting trans-European transport links, something which benefits all of us and facilitates the flow of trade. But beyond that, the argument for regional aid within a state is the same more widely within the Community as a whole.
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman is being courteous in giving way and we are all grateful to him. He said that we have responsibilities outside our own borders. Everyone would agree with that, and I know that many of my constituents care very deeply about some of the problems in the rest of the world and would wish us to be generous in our application of funds in that direction. But I think that they would rather spend their money in parts of East Africa or Ethiopia where there is starvation and real tragedy. What would the right hon. Gentleman say to them about our spending money in Greece and Ireland rather than in parts of the world which are really desperate and which really need our finances?
  Sir Russell Johnston: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman as long as he keeps on calling me a right hon. Gentleman. It is an incentive for me to do so.
  The answer to the first part of his question is that the Community gives very generous development aid. In answer to the second, I doubt very much that he is able to interpret his constituents' views quite as specifically as he suggests. What he says is not really an argument against either the cohesion fund or regional policy.
  Northern Ireland Members have made a number of references to the fact that the cohesion fund might in some way disadvantage them vis a vis the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland has certainly been a considerable recipient from the regional fund, although this, sadly, seems to have had very little impact on the ideological anti-Europeanism of the Unionists. It is not the purpose of the fund to disadvantage any region but to contribute to the correction of imbalances. I remind the Committee that money given to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain—which have a per capita gross national product below 90 per cent. of the Community average—is conditional on the recipients having a programme leading to the fulfilment of the conditions of economic convergence set out in the treaty.
  It is not only a question of helping particular countries to increase their economic well-being but of exercising a degree of control over the direction of their economies. That also ought to be borne in mind. Nevertheless, the Minister heard the allegations and I am sure that he will respond.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman said that convergence would have to accord with the Maastricht treaty. In fact, as he knows, the protocol specifically mentions that part of the treaty concerned with excess deficits. Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece will have to reduce their public borrowing to 3 per cent.—or at least produce programmes designed to reduce it—to get the money. Is that not a crazy way of going about things? Those countries will be required to cut public expenditure on roads, for example, to obtain money from the Commission to build roads.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. One purpose of article c is to amend excessive budget deficits, but there is no fixed time frame for the programme leading to the fulfilment of the conditions. The right hon. Gentleman is right in that respect.
  Mr. James Cran: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Russell Johnston: Well—
  Mr. Cran: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Russell Johnston: I give way to this seducer.
  Mr. Cran: How very kind. As I see the hon. Gentleman's argument, the purpose is to achieve convergence. Does he not agree that the classical tools of which he speaks have been used for the last 35 or 40 years within domestic economies to try to achieve convergence but have not succeeded? If one takes the United Kingdom's regional policy map for the 1930s and superimposes upon it today's map, or even that of five or 10 years ago, they are exactly the same. Classical mechanisms do not work.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I dispute that, and would argue that the Highlands and Islands Development Board, for example—which was a regional development mechanism—enjoyed a great deal of success. It reduced the outflow of people from the area and increased its income to the extent that it rose above the leval at which the region could secure Community grant. Much of the regional policy followed during the last Labour Government was also successful.
  Mr. Rogers: Is not the truth of the matter that classical mechanisms have helped substantially in Wales and Scotland, because they brought to a halt the deterioration of the situation that had been developing there? Without those mechanisms, regional disparities would have been far larger than they are today.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I agree. Such policies are central to the Community's political success. We cannot build a Community in which the weaker areas are seen to be neglected—a generous approach must be taken towards them.
  The only strong point in the arguments made by hon. Members who have intervened is that there is a need for general budgetary revision, to bring contributions more in line with the GDP of the country concerned. That should be the determining criterion, rather than the complicated mesh of measures that we have now. That would overcome the problem of requiring a country to give, by whatever means, to another country that may be richer.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of the sad effects of regional policy in this country has been the moving of jobs from successful, prosperous areas like the west midlands to other parts of the country?
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Gill: Regional policy has created no additional jobs and no additional wealth.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not simply carry on when I call him to order; he must resume his seat. What he is saying is entirely out of order in relation to the subject of cohesion funds. I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will not be tempted down the same route.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I shall obey your ruling, Mr. Morris. I shall now deal with the Committee of the Regions—although my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) hopes to catch your eye later, so that she can speak on the matter, on which she has tabled an amendment.
  570
  The hon. Member for Copeland argued that nomination to the committee should be limited to elected members. I would agree with that if I knew that the election would be carried out by means of a fair election system. My hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment to the hon. Gentleman's amendment that made that point, but, sadly, it was not selected. Nevertheless, Mr. Morris, I am sure that a fleeting reference to it would be possible.
  Earlier, there was an exchange between the two Front Benches about corruption. I believe that, in the main, corruption in councils has arisen from false majorities, and, sometimes, from tiny minority votes. I do not think that it would have arisen if the councils concerned had been elected according to a fair system, in which parties are represented in proportion to the size of the vote that they received.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Italy, for instance, has not had a large majority in power since the second world war. Why does it not have a marvellous reputation for honesty and a lack of corruption, if corruption tends to follow from large majorities?
  Sir Russell Johnston: I would not go so far as to claim that a particular electoral system will immediately produce greater honesty. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what you said."] I would not say that that was always the case. We are faced with a difficult problem—difficult, that is, if we want the outcome to be fair politically, and fair geographically. We are dealing with only 24 members. It will not be difficult if the aim is simply to appoint placemen, as has been suggested; but I take some comfort from what the Minister has said. He seems to be trying to find a way of matching the requirements.
  Personally, I do not exclude the possibility that that may necessitate a mixed system of some kind. If, however, the Minister is thinking of a replay of the Economic and Social Council, I hope that the House will want no part of it: that is the real resting place for cronies, left and right. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that, in this context, there are no Conservatives and no Socialists; there are only trade unionists and members of the CBI, who are, of course, totally non-political.
  Let me now deal with the geographical question, in the context of the treaty. People always talk about numbers when it comes to the Committee of the Regions. Article 130a says:
  "In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions, including the rural areas."
  Article 130c states:
  "The European Regional Development Fund is intended to help to redress the main regional imbalances in the Community through participation in the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind and in the conversion of declining industrial regions."
  9.30 pm
  That means that a simple allocation of seats in proportion to the population, which, incidentally, would give 20 to England, two to Scotland, one to Wales and one to Northern Ireland, would not accord with the reason for regional policy set out in the treaty. Therefore, to establish the committee on that basis would be a breach of the treaty.

  571
  Under such an arrangement, Greater London would have three seats and the rest of south-east of England would have four so that, taken together, they would have two more than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together. I should not have thought that that was sensible or had anything to do with regional development. It would also create a further problem about having a simple United Kingdom-based election, direct or indirect.
  Dr. Godman: I am given to understand that Scotland is to have six representatives on the Committee of the Regions. Is it not the case that the European Commission consults the consultative council of regional and local authorities and that with the creation of the Committee of the Regions, the council of local authorities is to disappear? Surely it makes good sense for the Committee of the Regions to be made up of local authority representatives.
  Sir Russell Johnston: As to whether Scotland is getting six, I know not, and I doubt very much whether the hon. Gentleman knows. I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), knows but I could be wrong.
  Mrs. Ewing: Is it right, Allan?
  Mr. Salmond: Ask him to intervene.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister is always welcome to intervene but he shows no signs of doing so.
  Mr. George Robertson: I noted the absence of an intervention by the Minister when there was a cry from a sedentary position of "Is it right, Allan?", which I can only assume is the Minister's Christian name. That was a passive indication of dissent from which we in Scotland will all draw conclusions.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Ray Whitney rose—
  Sir Russell Johnston: One at a time.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make a decision.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I give way to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney).
  Mr. Whitney: As a mere Sassenach I enter with trepidation into a debate north of the border. As I understood the arithmetic that the hon. Gentleman offered to the House, if the calculations were done strictly arithmetically, London and the south east would end up with seven representatives and Scotland with two. The hon. Gentleman objects to that proposition. I can understand the basis of his objection, but how can he square it with his and his party's complete devotion to proportional representation?
  Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been present for the beginning of my speech because I went over that, or perhaps I am getting short-sighted and did not see him. The figure was 20, not 17, for England. With respect, perhaps he could read Hansard tomorrow to save me stretching it out.
  Mr. Salmond: One last time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can seduce the Minister to intervene on this point because we have already been told by the Secretary
  572
  of State for Scotland—have we not?—that he is aiming high in terms of Scottish places on the Committee of the Regions. Denmark, a country of 5 million people, has nine places on the Committee of the Regions, so it would be useful to know from the Minister whether aiming high is the equivalent of Denmark's nine.
  Sir Russell Johnston: If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) wishes to seduce the Minister, all that I can say is chacun à son gout.
  Then there is the political question. The Government's approach to elections to the European Parliament has certainly not so far produced any evidence that they support pluralism or fairness. The Committee of the Regions will be advisory. The European Parliament, for that matter, is mainly advisory, expressing political views on the broad policies of the Community. However, in the 1983 European election, the Government watched 20 per cent. of those who voted in that election voting for the Liberal Democrats and getting no representation at all. I do not really trust the Government on this matter, but it is important; it is about democracy, electoral justice, enabling people's views to be expressed, and accountability. I hope that, despite their record, the Government will listen.
  To be acceptable, the outcome must take proper account of geography and politics. That is not easy. I accept that it is difficult to be specific about numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute has very strong, definite views on that matter, but in, political terms, a proportional system would produce a fair outcome.
  I certainly envisage the future of Europe as a Europe of the regions in which the old natural communities of Scotland, Bavaria, Brittany and Catalonia reassert themselves.
  Mr. Derek Enright: And Yorkshire.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Possibly even Yorkshire. At the time of the commission on the constitution, many surveys found that in Yorkshire there was a greater feeling of regional identification than existed in Wales. That caught many people in Wales by surprise.
  The Committee of the Regions is a limited step in this direction, but it is nevertheless a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), in a typically warm-hearted and good-tempered speech, had the wit to move from the stormy waters of regional policy and the cohesion fund—without any spillage of oil, I am glad to say—to the Committee of the Regions. He even managed to bring in Yorkshire as his parting shot. No Brer Rabbit he—he has covered the whole spectrum.
  With my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), a fellow Yorkshire Member, I want to pursue the theme that the hon. Gentleman lighted upon in the concluding part of his speech—the Committee of the Regions. I want to take issue with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in arguing, in amendment No. 28, for a monopoly on the Committee of the Regions for elected local authority representatives.
  The Committee of the Regions is not a Community institution. It is, by definition, only an advisory and consultative body. For that reason, as a consultative body, it is not necessarily the best institutional terrain for elected

  573
  representatives to canter over. Elected representatives are elected to execute policy, so a consultative body is almost against nature for elected local government representatives —particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will agree, elected representatives from Yorkshire.
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Mr. Alison: We now have a Yorkshire intervention, so I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Enright: Is not the right hon. Gentleman therefore asking for a duplication of EcoSoc? The Committee of the Regions is meant to be a quite different body altogether.
  Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is confusing us by introducing meaningless acronyms.
  Mr. Enright: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he would understand that it is the Economic and Social Council.
  Mr. Alison: That made the intervention too long, so it would have been better not to mention it at all.
  According to the draft treaty, the Committee of the Regions is appointed for a period of four years. That fits in awkwardly with the variations and permutations of the periods of tenure of office of many elected councillors, especially if they are appointed from county councils and district councils. After all, county council elections are often out of phase with district council elections.
  We may find that a representative who is nominated to the Committee of the Regions from a county council will suddenly drop out for electoral reasons after a period of three years, which is entirely out of phase with the normal four-year life of the committee. If there is a by-election which affects one of the nominated members, that nominated member will serve on the committee for only one year because the three-yearly cycle elections will come one year after his election in the by-election. The permutations and complications—
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Alison: I shall give way in a moment.
  The permutations and complications of fitting in district councillors and county councillors with out-ofphase elections, and with the possibility of by-elections—all district and county councillors must serve four years—makes it nonsensical. I am sure that the Minister will agree that having a fully local authority nominated Committee of the Regions would mean people popping up and down like figures in a Punch and Judy show, in one year, out in another, with absolutely no continuity in the four-year span.
  Mr. Jones: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Does he agree that there must be at least two crucial components for the selection of members to the Committee of the Regions? Does he accept the basic premise that the people nominated or selected for the committee, whether they are councillors or not, need some form of democratic legitimacy? Is it reasonable that the members should be chosen not by a Secretary of State in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales but by the people of the regions?
  Mr. Alison: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks about democratic legitimacy against the background of
  574
  the provision of the unanimity rule in so many aspects of the treaty. With local government nominated members elected by a local poll of 25 per cent., which is common in local government elections, 75 per cent. of the electorate need not bother to vote. The democratic argument about minority-elected local councillors falls down, especially when the treaty is at such pains to have not simply majority voting in certain areas but unanimous voting in many areas. The basis of poorly elected local authority representatives fails on the democratic test which is inherent in the sort of specifications that we make as normal voting patterns in the treaty.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to whether it could be described as purely democratic if the Secretary of State for Scotland, commanding 25 per cent. of the vote north of the border, had untrammelled power to appoint the Scottish representatives to the Committee of the Regions? Would that be a democratic test which passed in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion?
  Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman raises a different issue, although in doing so he underlines my point. If he is objecting to the status, validity and authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland, he must similarly endorse the fact that local authority representatives—nominated exclusively and to a monopoly degree, which is the point of amendment No. 28, by a 25 per cent. turnout at a local government election—have exactly the same detriment, and for the same reason, as the hon. Gentleman's lack of faith in the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): My right hon. Friend is developing an interesting point. Perhaps he and other hon. Members will consider the difficulty in having a body composed entirely of elected councillors, when our estimate is that the kind of people we would like to see on this body, who would work at it and take it seriously [Interruption.] Perhaps I should have referred to the kind of people whom the Committee and hon. Members would like to see serving on the Committee of the Regions—people who would take their work seriously and make a contribution. Our best estimate is that it would involve about two days' work a week. I wonder whether a conscientious, locally elected councillor would be able to give that amount of time to the task.
  Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, because of my enthusiasm for the progress of the Bill and my admiration for his debating skills, I was in the Committee earlier in the day and heard him make a similar intervention. I have not made in my speech the point that he made only because he made it convincingly and succinctly in that earlier intervention. I remind him of that simply to rassure him that I am constantly behind him and supporting him. Even when he may not notice me, I notice him and listen enthusiastically to every pearl of wisdom that drops from his lips.
  Locally elected councillors in, for example, councils which my hon. Friend and I know well in Yorkshire, work hard. Many of them find it a genuine struggle to carry the dual burden of earning a living and attending local council meetings to give their services as volunteers. My right hon. Friend is right to wonder whether they could be expected to spend as much as an additional two days a week. It was

  575
  enlightening to hear him point out that, in addition to all their other activities, they would be expected to spend two days a week on that work. Clearly, the supporters of the amendment have not thought through its implications.
  Mr. Gunnell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that matters such as that are being considered by other countries and their representatives? How does he account for the fact that from France, Italy, Germany and Spain there will be regional representatives who will, of course, also be members of regional councils in those countries? They, too, will be occupying a dual role, which is common in continental Europe. Although he made an interesting intervention, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary shortchanged us—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member's intervention is becoming a speech.
  Mr. Alison: I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's intervention. What I find heart warming is the sudden enthusiasm, which I believe is genuine, for the reality of democracy in some of our European neighbours. How recent it was that the Labour party wondered whether there was any real democracy in Germany, Spain or France, and how marvellous it is to find that all of a sudden we have France, Germany and Spain thrust upon us as models of the way the democratic system works. We rejoice in that new dawning of realisation on the Labour Benches, but I must tell Opposition Members that, despite their new-found enthusiasm for the realities of democracy among our European neighbours, there is still not quite the penetration of real down-to-earth representational democracy in France, Italy, Spain or Germany that we understand in our little local authorities, our district and county councils here at home.
  The new-found enthusiasm for democracy which hon. Members locate in our European neighbours still does not make the case for their having a complete monopoly on the new Committee of the Regions or for us to have our own very much better representatives. [Interruption.] I want to get on, because I want to end on a positive note: that is to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister applies his formidable ingenuity to helping us in judging the kind of alternatives that there might be for finding nominated local authority members.
  I am very disappointed that there is not an amendment on the Order Paper three or six pages long, listing all the different kinds of people who might be considered for nomination. [Interruption.] I shall not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I have sat here for so long, I am so used to the dulcet tones of his voice, and I have heard it so frequently that I have almost reached the point of natural saturation. I shall therefore allow him to sit there smiling, with his teeth showing—the natural disposition of my hon. Friend —and allow my own voice to echo in my own ears for a little longer, denying myself the extraordinary privilege of yet a further intervention from my hon. Friend, of whom I am very fond, naturally, and in whose ordinary conversation in the Lobbies I rejoice in engaging.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister should pick among the representatives who might be nominated. I do not exclude, as I notice that in an earlier intervention he did not, local authority elected members from
  576
  nomination, but we do not want them to have a monopoly, which is the point of amendment No. 28. What about representatives from some of the worthy and specialised voluntary organisations, from the churches, the trade associations, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress or the Institute of Directors? I hope that my right hon. Friend will take up the ball and run with it.
  Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not give way. One question I would have liked to have asked him in his enthusiasm for the Minister's denunciation of local authority members was whether he felt that a conscientious—I think that was the word—Secretary of State for Wales or a conscientious Secretary of State for Scotland would have time to serve on the Committee of the Regions.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Let me try to make it clear to the hon. Member. I am not denouncing local authority representatives and I am not saying for one minute that there should not be local authority representation, but let me put forward another point which ought to be seriously considered. It is not an uncommon practice on the continent for what I suppose might be called senior political figures to be nominated for a committee, on the understanding that they will not take an active part, and for the alternate to do the active work. I doubt whether that is a route down which we would wish to go but it is not uncommon and these are the kinds of considerations on which I hope the Committee will give us their views. We genuinely want to listen to what the Committee has to say on this matter.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for that clarification, but it raises further questions. I shall avoid being tempted along that route at the moment except to say that if the argument against local authority representatives is that they might not have enough time to fulfil the two days a week that the right hon. Gentleman suggests might be required, that must apply equally to his colleagues on the Government Benches. One of them—the Secretary of State for Wales —has said that he would have liked the opportunity to be one of the representatives on the Committee of the Regions.
  Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend's line of argument is interesting and valuable. Will he reflect, as should the Minister, on the fact that the debate is taking place a year and two months after the Maastricht treaty was agreed and the Minister agreed to the setting up of a Committee of the Regions? Tonight he told us what the Government are against, but in those 14 months they have not found a single idea that they favour.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for that observation. Earlier the Minister said that two member states had already reached the point of naming their representatives for the Committee of the Regions. I thought that it was odd for him to say that, when we have no idea of the basis on which selection will be made in the United Kingdom and we certainly have no idea of the names.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: What does the hon. Gentleman propose?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall try to make clear what I think would be appropriate as I develop my argument.

  577
  What I have found surprising about the debate on the Committee of the Regions is that some reservations have been expressed about what I would regard as a welcome development in the institutional relationship available to the European Community.
  The Committee of the Regions will be the first formal institutional recognition by the European Community of the important role played by the regions and by local authorities. In recent months we have heard a great deal about the word subsidiarity, which has been used to describe the relationship between the European Community and national Governments. All too often the fact that it applies equally to the relationship between national and local government—and to the relationship between European, regional and local government—has been overlooked because the Government have so little regard for the important role played by local authorities.
  Unlike any other Governments in the Community, this Government believe that power should be ever more centralised in the hands of the national Administration, in clear contrast to the overwhelming tendency throughout the Community to devolve power from the centre to the regions and to locally-based administrations. That is not done at the expense of democracy at the centre, but is in addition to it—a combination of democracy at local, regional, and national level, and I hope eventually at European level.
  The Government's obsessive objection to local government has illustrated their attitude throughout the Maastricht treaty negotiations and the history of negotiations leading up to the conclusion of the treaty is significant in that respect. The original text of article 198a referred to regional and local authorities. The Government insisted on amending the word "authorities" to the word that is now found in the Maastricht treaty, "bodies". When asked why that change was made I believe that the Minister said that "authorities" had "too narrow a meaning". I understand that those were his words. It is clear what he meant by that explanation. The word "authorities" could refer only to the elected representatives of the people. The British Government's insistence that the word "authorities" should be written out of the original text has led to the present ambiguity.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that the word "authority" appeared in the text, but the original text was in the French language and the word that appeared in the original French text was "collectivite". The decision was not taken by the British Government, or at their insistence, but by that admirable body, the jurist-linguists, who are needed in a Community where nine different languages are washing around. They decided that the word "collectivite" was best translated in the way that now appears on the face of the treaty.
  Mr. Hoon: I am a little confused by that explanation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I take it that he is indicating that it was not the British Government's insistence, but some other civil service objection to that translation. But certainly the original text referred to local authorities, and that appears to me to suggest that what was being sought in other member states was something that we would understand in this country by reference to an elected member—
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  LIVERPOOL HOUSING TRUST
  That the draft Liverpool Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.

  VETERINARY SURGEONS
  That the draft Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved. —[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  Hospice Movement
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  10 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I should first like to place on record my gratitude to Madam Speaker for selecting this important subject for the Adjournment debate this evening—[interruption]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members would leave quietly and allow the hon. Lady to have her Adjournment debate.
  Mrs. Roe: I am honoured, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be the Chairman of the all-party hospice group—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is still far too much noise.
  Mrs. Roe: I am honoured to be the Chairman of the all-party hospice group, and I much appreciate having this opportunity to speak of the highly valued and dedicated work of the hospice movement. Hospice is a philosophy, not a building. Hospice care covers in-patient care, day centres and home care. It is concerned with the relief of symptoms, such as pain, and with meeting the psychological, social and spiritual needs of people who are terminally ill.
  The modern hospice movement started in 1967 with the founding of St. Christopher's in Sydenham by Dame Cicely Saunders. The British hospice movement has provided a model for countries overseas, and provides a gold standard for care of the dying in the United Kingdom.
  Important though this work is, hospice care is about more than the care of the dying. Hospices offer a commitment to enhancing the quality of life that remains to terminally ill patients. It is about preparing and supporting in a very positive way not just the patients but also relatives and dependants. It is about excellence in nursing care, and I pay tribute to the outstanding work and devotion so often displayed by those nursing the terminally ill.
  The experience given to the hospice movement means that much has been learned and understood about the control of symptoms, so that hospice care now offers a highly respected skill in pain management, often by a variety of different means. Moreover, the hospice movement provides desperately needed respite care facilities. The relief and comfort that this brings to the cared for and their carers cannot be overestimated.
  Let me tell the House about one woman, a divorced teacher of 54 living with two of her five children and a grandson of five. She had an operation for cancer of the colon at the end of 1991 and was well for six months, but the cancer spread to her liver. She started chemotherapy, which made her feel very unwell. After four courses of this treatment, she had to arrange for her grandson to be fostered.
  She attempted to commit suicide by taking an overdose of drugs on the day before she was due to have her next course of treatment. After treatment for the overdose, she was seen by psychiatrists, who felt that she was very depressed, but, because of her physical symptoms, they realised that a bed in a psychiatric hospital was not the
  580
  place for her. She was assessed by the hospice doctor and was able to talk about her desperation and how she felt cheated at having been rescued. Given the opportunity, she would attempt suicide again.
  She was transferred to the hospice, and good symptom control lessened the pain and nausea, and, with support from the hospice staff and with the anti-depressant tablets, she began to improve. She began to enjoy the various activities that the hospice offered, and, after a three-week stay, was well enough to visit her newly arrived twin granddaughters.
  A week later, that lady was discharged and has been supported ever since by the day centre, where minor changes in her medicines have kept her symptoms under control, despite the fact that the disease is progressing. Because of her contact with the hospice, she is able to accept the situation and is making the most of her time with her grandson, who remains with foster parents. This is a true story of a woman helped by a hospice offering in-patient, day centre and home care. It shows how good symptom control can improve the quality of life of someone psychologically in despair.
  Take also the case of the happily married woman of 58, whose family was grown up. Although she was confined to bed because of pain and was being visited by a nurse from the hospice, she felt unable to accept the idea of going into a hospice at all. As her pain increased and it became obvious that she was dying, she agreed to go into a hospice as an in-patient. It was found there that her hip was fractured. This partly explained her terrible pain. After an operation on her hip, she returned to the hospice. An epidural injection abolished the pain in her hip, and the pain in the abdomen was controlled with pain-killing medicines. For the first time in three months, she felt comfortable, free of pain and in peace. She died peacefully, with her family present, in the hospice a week later.
  Hospice provision has grown rapidly in the last 25 years. Twenty-five years ago, there were only 15 voluntary hospices, compared to 199 now. There are now nearly 3,000 in-patient hospice beds—most of them in voluntary hospices, but about 500 in national health service units. In addition, there are 400 home-care teams, 150 attached to hospice in-patient units, and 200 day hospices. Some teams operate independently, and some are attached to hospitals.
  This represents an enormous investment by local communities, who pioneered, raised funds and provided the essential voluntary help that enabled voluntary hospices to grow so rapidly. National bodies like Marie Curie Cancer Care, the Sue Ryder Foundation, the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund and Help the Hospices all play a major role in fund-raising, direct provision and education.
  I recognise and acknowledge the importance of the Government ring-fenced hospice grant in the development of voluntary hospices. The importance of securing funding was recognised by the Government in 1990, when the first hospice grant was made. This helped the movement to plan ahead. Now, in 1993, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced to the House in the debate on 26 January, £43 million of extra money is being made available to help the hospice movement this year. A ring-fenced amount of £32·3 million is allocated to the regions for distribution via district health authorities; there is a welcome £5·6 million extension of the drug scheme to give voluntary hospices access to drugs supplied by health authorities; and there is a further £5 million to help hospices with the changes in income support and

  581
  community care. I welcome this generous treatment of the voluntary hospice movement, but there remain some important questions that I should like to raise with the Minister.
  First, Government policy is to match with statutory funds the value of voluntary contributions to the revenue costs of planned and agreed services. As ring-fenced money is to end in 1994, and as contracting with health authorities is to become the standard route for financial help to the voluntary hospice movement, I seek from the Minister information on the mechanism to be adopted to ensure that 50:50 funding is achieved.
  Secondly, one in six hospice beds are in national health service units. I seek from the Minister reassurance that these services will be adequately funded in the future. Can the Minister give an assurance that purchasers in health authorities will be urged to maintain—indeed, increase—the funding of NHS hospice services?
  Thirdly, for many hospices, income support payments provide a substantial part of revenue. The Department of Social Security is passing to the Department of Health £5 million to replace income support. How is that money to be distributed to ensure that the hospices, whose budgets depend on that money, will be fairly compensated so that their services are not adversely affected?
  Fourthly, Government support of free drugs and dressings to hospice patients is welcome. However, because of the very advanced stages of cancer that hospices treat, many of the dressings desperately needed by patients nearing the end of their life are not available on the NHS. Will my hon. Friend the Minister add dressings, such as charcoal dressings and the larger sizes of available dressings such Jelonet and Actisorb, to the drug tariff, so that those vital dressings may become freely available to hospice patients and to people nursed at home?
  Fifthly, to ensure that hospices and specialist palliative care services are given the priority that people who are terminally ill merit, will my hon. Friend ensure that regional health authorities are asked to consider those as priority services and that their commitment is regularly reviewed and monitored?
  The hospice movement appreciates the Government's support, but the Government need to be reminded that the movement is left to raise over half its funds itself—amounting to £50 million annually. In a recession which is affecting individual and corporate charitable donations, as we are all aware, that is increasingly difficult—a difficulty made worse in some districts where there are fund-raising campaigns by NHS provider units and trusts.
  The last question for which I seek an answer involves children's hospices. There are five children's hospices in the United Kingdom, with more planned. They currently rely virtually totally on voluntary fund-raising. Those children's hospices need a stable financial arrangement similar to that introduced by the Government for adult hospices. I seek guidance on the Government's plans to ensure that that happens and that all children with a life-threatening disease have access to a recognised children's hospice for both respite and terminal care.
  The voluntary hospice movement is getting ready for the new culture in the NHS. It now speaks a coherent voice through the newly formed National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services, which has appreciated the warm support given it by Ministers. The council, supported financially by British Gas, is active in ensuring that those involved in the hospice movement as
  582
  volunteers and staff are fully informed of new developments in the health and social services. Council publications include "Guidelines on Contracting" and a paper on introducing quality standards and audit to hospices. The council has just published "Care in the Community for People who are Terminally Ill: Guidelines for Health Authorities and Social Services Department",
  which is being circulated to social services departments and health authorities.
  I draw attention to those guidelines because I know that many in the hospice world are concerned that the small group of people in the community who are terminally ill could be overlooked when community care reforms are introduced in April.
  I congratulate the Government on inviting the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee to examine hospice and palliative care services. I welcome their report "The Principles and Provision of Palliative Care," and seek an assurance from the Minister that before the recommendations in that report are accepted by Government, the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services, which is representative of all the professional groups involved in hospice and palliative care throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be consulted.
  Lastly, I shall remind the House once more why the hospice movement is such a valuable and important asset to the United Kingdom. A young man developed a brain tumour at 36. He and his wife had two children. At 40, he became weaker, had difficulty in speaking and was unable to work. Chemotherapy stabilised his condition for the next three years, but then he began to deteriorate. Modifications to the house were made, until his wife, a tiny woman looking after a large husband at home, installed a hoist to get him into bed and into the wheelchair which was necessary to get him to a commode. He became unable to feed or dress himself.
  The hospice first admitted him for a three-week period to give the wife some time to relax with her family. She visited him in the hospice every day. Over the next four years, she looked after her husband, but with increasing admissions for respite care. At first it was every three months, and then, towards the end of his life, for two weeks out of every six. By this time, her husband was unable to communicate or swallow. He spent his last few weeks in the hospice, where he died peacefully and in comfort.
  The hospice movement cares for families, including bereavement care, as well as caring for dying patients. The year before her husband's death, this devoted wife and mother lost one of their two children in a road accident. The skilled support of the hospice enabled her to cope with this bereavement and a year after her husband's death she continues to visit the hospice for meetings for bereaved relatives as she begins to rebuild a new life with her son.
  Without the voluntary hospice movement and the devoted staff and volunteers, whose work includes voluntary bereavement counselling, acting as trustees, flower arranging and all-important fund raising, this wonderful movement of which Britain should be so proud could not continue. Government support is greatly appreciated, and the Government's continued commitment by giving firm answers to the questions I have raised is essential.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on winning the opportunity of the debate and on using it to describe with such eloquence the enormous benefit that the hospice movement brings to sick and dying people.
  My hon. Friend was too modest in underplaying her own considerable role, not least through her involvement with the parliamentary all-party group on hospices as secretary and now as chairman. Despite her important and demanding role as chairman of the Select Committee on Health, she has continued to work to raise the profile of hospices in the House, not least through her recent initiative to encourage hon. Members to visit hospices and to see the good work that they do; I hope that there is a good response.
  I echo the tribute paid to the excellence of the voluntary hospices since St. Christopher's hospice first blazed the trail 25 years ago. The enormous progress which has been made in the development of palliative care since then is a tribute to the dedication, hard work and love of thousands of people who have raised funds and devoted their time to help others. Their efforts have brought to dying people and their families support, peace and, above all, improvement in the quality of their lives.
  The Government's determination to drive forward health improvements is clearly set down in our White Paper, "The Health of the Nation". Our policy is to add years to life and, no less importantly, to add life to years. However, the emphasis on the improved quality of life is not new; it is the path down which the hospice movement has been leading us for years.
  As modern medicine has progressed, some doctors and nurses have come to see death as a failure, but death itself is not a failure; the tragedy comes when death is premature, unnecessary, painful, hidden away and, perhaps worst of all, lonely. Nowadays, death seems something almost to be ashamed of as well as feared, but the work of the hospice movement is doing much to change that by relieving pain and helping people to approach death more calmly. The voluntary hospice movement has led the way. The principles of good palliative care developed by the hospice movement—patient-centred, responsive to need, holistic, supporting the family—are spreading into the rest of health care provision and I am delighted to see that happening.
  Three years ago the then Chief Medical Officer said in his annual report:
  "a major challenge for the 1990s is to extend the principles of good palliative care to the treatment of all patients with a terminal illness, regardless of their underlying diagnosis, and to measure the effectiveness of care".
  In all this, the voluntary sector have led the way, with the national health service following closely behind. The care of terminally ill people offers perhaps the best example of the voluntary and statutory sectors co-operating. The hospice movement has become an important part of the overall package of health care provision. In this, the work of the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services has played an important role. The Government are anxious to encourage ever closer working and to that end have given substantial funding to health authorities in recent years to enable them to support the running costs of voluntary hospices.
  584
  In 1987, the Department of Health asked health authorities to plan and provide comprehensive services for terminally ill people in co-operation with the voluntary sector, and to agree with voluntary organisations a contribution towards the costs of any direct services which they provided and which formed part of the authorities' overall plans. Authorities gave £11·4 million to voluntary hospices in 1988–89, and they have gone on to give more every year since then. Health authorities' funds are limited, so the Government have provided specific funding to help those authorities to give more support to voluntary hospice services—£8 million in 1990–91—which meant that the national health service was able to provide 30 per cent. of the cost of voluntary hospice services. We have increased Government funding every year, giving £17 million in 1991–92 and £31 million this year. Next year it will be even more—£32·36 million—for the health authorities to help out with voluntary hospices' running costs.
  That is not the end of the story. In 1988–89 we provided extra money to help hospices to bear the cost of the pay award for nurses. In 1991–92 we introduced a pilot scheme to enable hospices to obtain drugs for their in-patients free of charge, extending the scheme in 1992–93 to cover dressings and appliances. We extended this for a further year and are providing £5·6 million next year. We shall review the future of the scheme durng the course of the year. Last year, too, we announced a £5 million programme of funding specifically for children's hospices. We are giving health authorities £5 million next year to enable them to replace the funding which some hospices would previously have received from the higher rates of income support. All this brings the Government's total funding to voluntary hospices in England since 1991 to more than £105 million.,
  We cannot, however, be complacent. Too many people die in hospital instead of in a hospice or at home with proper care and support. The challenge for the national health service is to respond more flexibly to the needs and interests of dying people in the community and in a full-time care setting. We are therefore working with health authorities to ensure that they bring voluntary hospices firmly into overall health planning and contracting, and that they continue to develop national health service facilities.
  From 1994–95 we shall build money for hospices and similar organisations into health authorities' overall funding on a recurrent basis. This means that authorities will be better placed to plan longer-term funding with the relevant voluntary organisations. At present, authorities do not know how much funding for hospices they will have for the new financial year until shortly before the year begins. This can prevent them from planning long-term service developments with hospices. Building funding into general allocations will make it easier for health authorities and hospices to agree three-year contracts, thus giving hospices greater financial security and a firm foundation on which to plan ahead. It will also help to develop a more structured approach to developing national health service and voluntary sector services side by side.
  We believe that this is the best way of ensuring that health authorities move towards our target, that public funding for hospices should match voluntary giving, while at the same time providing greater flexibility to plan long-term services. The Department of Health will

  585
  monitor health authorities closely to ensure that they agree contracts with hospices for future years and that they are making progress towards matched funding. In 1994–95 it will be an explicit priority for health authorities to agree firm service contracts with hospices and other organisations providing palliative care.
  Our commitment to promoting palliative care is clear, but it is not just a matter of funding. We need to find out more about how to help dying people. We need to help people to understand death and disease more, to approach death with less fear, and to be more caring, compassionate and supportive towards terminally ill people. To that end, we have supported research at York university and stimulated the production of a distance learning programme at the Open University. We are also promoting and supporting conferences of professionals.
  In addition, we asked the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee to look at the organisation of palliative care services and the measurement of their performance. Their report, "The Principles and Provision of Palliative Care", will be published soon. Pre-publication copies were sent to health authorities and other interested bodies and there have already been strong reactions to the report—favourable and otherwise. I have seen, for instance, the initial response from the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services. That is very welcome because one of our key aims is to stimulate a debate about the organisation and scope of palliative care. We look forward to seeing further reactions to the report and to discussions about its implications. We also asked health authorities to consider the report's recommendations in drawing up plans for services for terminally ill people.
  My hon. Friend asked about the distribution of the £5 million transferred from the Department of Social Security. I am aware of hospices' concern that they might suffer financially after 1 April this year as a result of changed eligibility for income support resulting from changes to community care arrangements. I take this opportunity to reassure them that we are taking steps to prevent hospices losing out.
  Community care changes are aimed at enabling authorities to place vulnerable people in the care environment best suited to their needs, including support in their own home. As part of those changes, people going into a hospice after 1 April will no longer be able to claim income support payments to meet a charge for their care.
  586
  Where hospices need funding in addition to that raised from voluntary giving in order to provide essential services, that should come from the NHS.
  The £5 million transferred to enable health authorities to maintain levels of public funding available to hospices will mean that hospices will have a single source of public money instead of the present two sources—income support payments and health authority funding. Health authorities will use the £5 million to replace the funding that some hospices previously received from special higher rates of income support.
  We shall very shortly be giving guidance to health authorities on the use of the £5 million, asking them to allocate it in a manner that is sensitive to the current reliance on income support of specialist voluntary in-patient palliative care facilities in their areas. Funding should be provided through contractual arrangements wherever possible. We believe that that will cushion the impact of the loss of income support and protect hospices from the financial problems which some feared. Further funding will be provided to health authorities in following years. We shall monitor closely the use of that funding and the relative support given to individual voluntary hospices. I welcome the national council's recent guidelines on community care for terminally ill people, and I am sure that they will prove valuable to hospices and authorities.
  My hon. Friend asked about our plans for future funding of children's hospices. As with adult hospices, the objective now is to move towards health authorities determining the need for hospice care for children through contracts rather than persisting with central funding via top-slicing, as at present. We believe that hospices should form only one element of services for children with life-threatening illnesses, and that provision should be based primarily on domiciliary care in the child's home, wherever possible, with access to respite and palliative care as necessary.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that hospices and palliative care have come a long way. From a small, enthusiastic but essentially separate movement, it has become an integral part of the overall health care spectrum. In that, as in many other areas, we must acknowledge our substantial debt to the innovative work of the voluntary sector—and I particularly applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne in drawing attention to all that it has done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Buses Project
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authority and bus company have been selected for the low floor demonstration project outside London.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have selected a route in North. Shields and Whitley Bay run by Go Ahead Northern Coastline. I am delighted that we have been able to find the resources to enable Tyne and Wear passenger transport executive to fund this project. The route carries a significant number of elderly and disabled people who will particularly benefit from the introduction of new low floor buses. But such

  Name of appointee

  Body to which appointed and remuneration

  Period of the appointment

  Mr. D. E. Rayner1

  British Railways Board £69,550 pa

  1 November 1992 to 31 October 1995

  Mr. M. W. Betts

  Traffic Commissioner, Scottish Traffic Area £42,724 pa

  9 November 1992 to 3 March 2003

  Captain M. Willett

  Civil Aviation Authority £69,300 pa

  14 November 1992 to 13 November 1996

  Mr. R. B. Horton

  British Railways Board £120,000 pa

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Miss K. Kantor1

  British Railways Board £7,160 pa

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Mr. A. J. Norman

  British Railways Board £7,160 pa

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Miss J. A. Page

  British Railways Board £7,160 pa

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Mr. D. B. Pearl1

  Medway Ports Authority

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Sir Brian Shaw

  Port of London Authority

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994

  Mr. I. F. Halliday1

  Port of London Authority

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Ms. P. Hawkes

  Shoreham Port Authority

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Mr. J. M. Buttmer1

  Shoreham Port Authority

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Mr. G. R. Green1

  Shoreham Port Authority

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Mr. J. E. White1

  Shoreham Port Authority

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  Mr. B. J. Wilson1

  Shoreham Port Authority

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995

  238
  vehicles will also benefit other passengers who find the entrance steps and narrow gangways of conventional buses difficult to negotiate. We will monitor the scheme and make the results available to other bus operators and local authorities.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 29 October 1992,Official Report, column 760; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. Norris
  Details of public appointments made by my right hon. Friend since 20 October 1992 are set out in the table. It is not considered practicable or appropriate to list the many and varied qualifications of the individual appointees, but my right hon. Friend will have satisfied himself as to their relevance before making the appointments. The Department usually does not know, and certainly would not specifically record, the political affiliation of appointees. Remuneration of port authority appointees is a matter for the authorities themselves.
  239

  Name of appointee

  Body to which appointed and remuneration

  Period of the appointment

  Mr. J. V. S. Evans

  Landscape Advisory Committee Unpaid

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1997

  Mrs. E. J. Garland

  Landscape Advisory Committee Unpaid

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1997

  Mrs. V. R. Wakefield

  Landscape Advisory Committee Unpaid

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1997

  Professor Margaret A. MacKeith

  Landscape Advisory Committee Unpaid

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1997

  Ms. W. M. Lutley

  Landscape Advisory Committee Unpaid

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1997

  Professor Mary Benwell

  Landscape Advisory Committee Unpaid

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1997

  Mr. T. O. Lewis1

  Milford Haven Port Authority

  1 February 1993 to 31 January 1996

  Mr. W. A. J. Reardon-Smith1

  Milford Haven Port Authority

  1 February 1993 to 31 January 1996

  Mr. R. E. Birdseye

  Civil Aviation Authority £43,020 pa

  1 February 1993 to 31 January 1996

  1 Reappointments.

  Seat Belts
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budget has been set for the forthcoming campaign on seat belt wearing; and if he will give a breakdown of the estimated costs of advertising.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: A budget of £1.2 million has been set for the campaign on seat belt wearing which was launched on Tuesday 2 February. The bulk of this budget, £1.15 million, has been allocated to the production and airing of a television commercial over the period 2 to 16 February. The remainder of the budget, £50,000, has been allocated to the production of leaflets explaining seat belt law and posters and research.

ENVIRONMENT

  Biodiversity Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to develop a United Kingdom-wide biodiversity plan.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 24 June 1992 that the United Kingdom would prepare a national biodiversity action plan to promote the convention on biological diversity agreed earlier that month. The target date for the publication of the plan is the end of 1993.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide in tabular form the numerical data used in preparation of the pie charts in figures A2.2 to A11.3 inclusive in annex A of his Department's draft consultation document "Guidelines 240
  for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales-Revision of MPG6", showing in each case the tonnages assumed for each source of aggregates supply.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Noise Review
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken by his Department following the report of the noise review working party in 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on Tuesday 19 January, at column 163.

  Marine Impact Assessment
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of how adequately his Department's marine impact assessment procedures meet the terms of EC directives.

  Mr. Maclean
  The requirements of directive 85/337 on environmental impact assessment have been fully incorporated into existing regulatory systems for controlling marine developments. EIA procedures are being considered as part of the Government's review of the effectiveness of regulations below the low water mark, which I announced on 8 July last year in response to a question from the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), at column 252.

  Local Authorities (Devolution)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has to devolve power to local authorities;

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress in the devolution of power to local authorities.
  241
  Mr. Squire
  The split of responsibilities between central and local government is a matter for Parliament to determine. There has always been an ebb and flow of responsibilities between the two and this will continue.

  Urban Priority Areas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had and plans to have with the voluntary sector on the review of urban priority areas.

  Mr. Squire
  We will write shortly to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the National Association of Councils for Voluntary Services to invite comments on the methodology recommended by external researchers for use in analysing data on urban conditions drawn from the 1991 census.

  Empty Office Buildings (Residential Consent)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department gives to local authorities concerning the granting of temporary residential consent for empty office buildings.

  Mr. Baldry
  Last October we published a draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 6, Town Centres and Retail Development, which at paragraph 14 states:"In those town centres that contain vacant office and retail premises that seem unlikely to be reused for that purpose, local planning authorities should encourage conversion to other service, retail or residential uses. Such buildings, especially older office buildings originally converted from houses, may be particularly suitable for conversion to flats, for example for students and householders without cars."

  We will finalise the draft note within the next few months.

  Some developers might believe that such a conversion will mean for ever abandoning the prospect of attracting a commercial tenant. We see no such difficulty. Owners may seek temporary residential permissions—for, say, 10 years —with the certainty of being able to switch back to commercial use at a later date.

  Empty Departmental Houses
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by the task force on Government Department's empty houses.

  Mr. Baldry
  The task force on Government Departments' empty houses has met once since it was established on 8 December 1992. It has made a positive start on the work necessary to deliver its remit of helping to bring empty Government residential properties into use for people in housing need. The next meeting of the task force is on 10 February.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions his Department has had with the European Commission on the draft air quality framework directive; and what assessment he has made of the consequences for the United Kingdom national air quality monitoring network and for local authority air quality monitoring activities.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has had three meetings with the Commission to discuss its emerging proposals for 242
  a draft air quality standards framework directive. The proposals are still at an early stage of development and it is too soon to say what implications the eventual directive might have for the United Kingdom monitoring network and local authority monitoring activities. Meanwhile, my Department is already expanding its urban air quality monitoring network and preparing proposals for better integration of central and local monitoring effort.

  Local Authority Recycling Plans
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the Coopers and Lybrand report on local authority recycling plans will not assess the quality and realism of the plans; what steps he took to ensure that the tender specification for the report was widely distributed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The review of local authority recycling plans is intended to provide a comprehensive picture of the information they contain; a qualitative assessment of the plans is beyond the scope of the exercise. We made clear our intention to commission a detailed study of the plans to extract useful information from them. Those organisations which expressed an interest in this project were invited to tender for the work.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Her Majesty's Government first committed themselves to bring forward new legislation to protect hedgerows; on how many occasions and in which documents that commitment has been repeated subsequently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Proposals to give local authorities powers to protect hedgerows were first announced in the Government White Paper, "This Common Inheritance" in September 1990. Revised proposals were announced in July 1991 and restated in the first year report of the White Paper (September 1991) and our policy document "Action for the Countryside" (February 1992). Due to pressure on the parliamentary programme, we were unable to introduce appropriate legislation this Session, but we continue to support the Hedgerows Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth).

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the timetable for the Local Government Commission's reviews of areas in the second tranche of its work programme.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am pleased to announce, following consultation with the Local Government Commission, the timetable for the second tranche of the review of areas.

  We intend the commission begins its review of Leicestershire on 10 May. The review of Nottinghamshire will begin a few weeks later.

  The commission's review of the other second tranche areas of Cumbria and Lancashire, Hampshire, Staffordshire, Devon, and Cambridgeshire will begin soon after the other reviews of areas in the first tranche have been completed.

  We anticipate that the commission will require less time to formulate draft and final proposals for the second

  243
  tranche review areas than it needed for some of the more complex first tranche reviews. However, we are still adamant that local people should have ample opportunity to express their views to the commission and have plenty of time to respond to draft recommendations and the period allowed at the consultation stages remain as set out in the original procedure guidance to the commission.

  In drawing up the timetable, we have allowed for local government elections and the need for extra consultation time over the summer holiday period.

  The announcement of the detailed timetable will now enable all authorities in the second tranche to plan ahead in order to ensure that the Commission's review of their area will be executed as smoothly as possible.

  I have placed a copy of the second tranche timetable in the Library.

  Development Plans
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a local authority development plan is an interest of acknowledged importance in terms of the guidance provided in paragraph five of planning policy guidance note 1.

  Mr. Baldry
  Planning policy guidance note 1 (March 1992) provides advice on the determination of planning applications in accordance with sections 70(2) and 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In the process of deciding a planning application, which entails having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, all interests of acknowledged importance should be identified and any harm that would be caused, were permission to be granted, taken into account.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 30 October 1992,Official Report, columns 859–62; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. Howard
  The following new appointments have been made since October 1992 to the boards of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department. Information on political affiliation is not held centrally.

  Department of the Environment New appointments made from 31 October 1992

  Name of body and postholder

  Appointment end

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD

  Member

  Viscountess Cobham

  31 January 1996

  COMMONS COMMISSIONERS

  Commissioner

  M. J. Roth

  11 May 1994

  G. Langdon-Davies

  31 December 1993

  ENGLISH NATURE

  Member

  Professor R. C. L. Wilson

  31 March 1995

  HOUSING ACTION TRUST—LIVERPOOL

  Member

  Miss D. Todd

  12 November 1995

  Mrs. M. F. Gallimore

  12 November 1995

  244

  Name of body and postholder

  Appointment end

  HOUSING ACTION TRUST—TOWER HAMLETS

  Chairman

  Dr. M. A. Barraclough

  17 December 1995

  Deputy Chairman

  J. Ludlow (Councillor)

  17 December 1995

  INLAND WATERWAYS AMENITY ADVISORY COUNCIL

  Chairman

  G. H. Baker

  31 December 1993

  URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION—SHEFFIELD

  Member

  F. Eul

  30 November 1994

  M. Bower (Councillor)

  30 November 1994

  Ms. J. Bacon

  30 November 1994

  Housing Investment Programme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the relative performance of each local authority in Merseyside for the purposes of determining the housing investment programme allocations for 1993 to 1994; and if he will publish the figures.

  Mr. Baldry
  Figures for local authority housing investment programme allocations for 1993–94 were announced on 17 December by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, at column 507; details are in the Libraries of the House. The primary criterion which underlay the discretionary element of these allocations was the efficiency and effectiveness of authorities in the use of resources to meet housing need. In reaching an assessment for these purposes of the authorities in Merseyside, we took into account all available information which was relevant, including authorities' housing strategies and HIP bids, and discussions in the course of the annual round of HIP meetings between authorities and officials in the Department's Merseyside task force.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals there are to change the 1992–93 cash limit and running cost limit for Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary spring supplementary estimate for Ordnance Survey, class VIII, vote II, the cash limit for Ordnance Survey, class VIII, vote II will be increased by £2,866,000 from £19,049,000 to £21,915,000. The increase will be a charge on the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The net running cost limit will be increased by £3,076,000 from £18,998,000 to £22,074,000.

  The increase in the cash limit is required to reflect a shortfall in the receipts for the sales of maps, copyright and public sector repayments due to a reduction in the demand for OS products, partially offset by savings from running costs, capital and superannuation expenditure. Supplementary provision is also required to reduce the imbalance between input and output VAT resulting from cutbacks in capital and running cost expenditure.
  245
  The increase to the net running cost limit is required to reflect a shortfall in the receipts for sales of maps, copyright and public sector repayments due to a reduction in demand. This is partially offset by savings from running cost expenditure.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to his Department's cash limits and running costs limit for 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:—

  The DOE/UA non-voted cash limit will be increased by £1,020,000 from £1,017,449,000 to £1,018,469,000. The increase is a net effect of savings and increases within the cash limit. Increases include £6,000,000 for local authority sector derelict land grant to account for increases in the forecast level of spend and £1,750,000 for the urban programme. A further £3,020,000 will be required for various projects for urban development corporations, to fund a number of schemes for the Cleveland city action team and to increase the provision for urban development grant. There is a technical increase of £3,000,000 which will be offset by a decrease in the Department of Transport national roads England cash limit. Savings include £10,205,000 on the city grant programme, £1,000,000 for the non local authority sector derelict land grant programme and a technical saving of £1,545,000 which will be offset by an increase in the Housing Corporation cash limit. The effect on voted expenditure will be a net increase of £3,000,000.

  The cash limit for class VIII, vote 5 (Central environmental services etc.) will be increased by £5,861,000 from £317,127,000 to £322,988,000. The increase provides for an additional £7,900,000 in grant in aid to the Rural Development Commission, required because of a shortfall in the commission's receipts from property sales. This will be partially offset by a saving of £1,439,000 on the energy efficiency programme, £200,000 on the environmental technology innovation scheme and £400,000 on grants to water companies. The cash limit increase will be funded in part by forecast savings of £1,500,000 in European regional development fund payments to water undertakers and £161,000 of previously unallocated public expenditure provision.

  The running cost limit for Property Holdings and Central Support Services will be reduced by £668,000 from £48,201,000 to £47,533,000. This reduction reflects pay savings. The net running cost control limit for the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre will be reduced by £48,000 from £1,136,000 to £1,088,000. Some receipts which would have been paid into the Consolidated Fund will be reclassified as appropriations in aid. This reclassification will fund a freehold acquisitions programme, cover a shortfall of property disposal receipts and offset an increase in vacant accommodation costs.

  The Department of the Environment's running costs limit has been reduced by £5,556,000 from £201,899,000 to £196,343,000. This change mainly results from a
  246
  reallocation of existing estimate provision between running costs and non-running costs, in line with estimated outturn, on class VIII, vote 8 (Department of the Environment: administration), partly offset by a transfer of £34,000 running costs cover to class VIII, vote 2 (Miscellaneous housing administration and grants).

  The cash limit for class VIII, vote 9 (Revenue support grant, payment of non-domestic rates, valuation office rating services, etc, England) will be decreased by £176,000 from £29,523,296,000 to £29,523,120,000. This is due to lower than expected computer costs for valuation tribunals and a transfer of provision to the Ministry of Defence (class I, vote 1) compensating local authorities for community charge income foregone from servicemen as a result of the Gulf crisis. £71,000 of the savings offset an equivalent increase on class VIII, vote 13, for the new grant to compensate local authorities for additional costs arising from the influx of people displaced from former Yugoslavia.

  The DOE/HC non-voted cash limit will be increased by £598,545,000 from £1,707,200,000 to £2,305,745,000. This increase reflects the addition of £597,000,000 mainly for housing associations to purchase empty dwellings as part of the housing recovery package announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement, and a transfer from the city challenge programme of £1,545,000 to increase housing association funding in city challenge areas.

  The DOE/LACAP non-voted cash limit will be increased by £28,259,000 from £2,914,829,000 to £2,943,088,000. This increase reflects the addition of £30,000,000 for local authority cash incentive schemes as part of the housing recovery package announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement. This is partly offset by savings of £1,741,000 in other grants within the cash limit.

  All the increases will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take in the implementation of the new EC habitats and species directive to safeguard key coastal and inshore waters from oil pollution.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: The Government are considering what measures are necessary to implement the EC directive on the conservation of habitats and of wild flora and fauna. Proposals will be issued for consultation in the coming month. The inquiry under Lord Donaldson announced on 11 January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the United Kingdom coast from pollution from merchant shipping giving due consideration to the international and economic implications of any new measures.

  Local Authorities (Debt)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which are currently debt free.

  Mr. Squire
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1993, c. 116–17]: I regret that the list of authorities which became debt free as a result of the commutation of grants

  247
  for debt charges which took place on 1 October 1992 contained an error. I now understand that Mid Bedfordshire district council is not in fact debt free.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Attorney-General what changes he proposes to the Crown prosecution service's cash limit for 1992–93.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. The cash limit for class X, vote 5 will be reduced by £1,500,000 from £199,846,000 to £198,346,000. This is to offset, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, increased net expenditure on class X, vote 6, Crown prosecutions and legal services. This extra provision is needed to meet additional costs arising from implementation of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and a shortfall in appropriations-in-aid.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Printers
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he proposes to introduce the defence of innocent dissemination for printers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has already announced the Government's intention to make provision for the proposed defence of innocent dissemination by printers. This will require primary legislation which will be introduced when there is a suitable opportunity.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes he proposes to the Land Registry's cash and running costs for 1992–93.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class X, vote 11 will be increased by £10,999,000 from a token £1,000 to £11,000,000. In addition, the net running costs limit for the Land Registry will be increased by £11,000,000 from zero to £11,000,000.

  The Land Registry is a demand-led executive agency which relies on fees paid by its customers to cover its administrative costs which it has successfully achieved since 1976. The continuing low level of activity in the property market in England and Wales has resulted in the agency's workload (in units) being some 30 per cent. lower than originally anticipated. In order to keep its costs within the reducing income, the agency has restricted expenditure to 16 per cent. below the main estimate provision, but it is now clear that the total fee income for the year will fall short of forecast spending by the amount sought through the supplementary estimate. The agency's cashflow position has been made worse by the fact that some larger liabilities relating to its legal liability to indemnify for losses resulting from register and search errors have required payment. These increases will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Peter Butler
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes are planned to class X, vote 12 of the Public Record Office's vote for 1992–93.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cash limit for class X, vote 12 has been reduced by £3,393,000 from £33,739,000 to £30,346,000 as a result of slippage on a major capital project. In addition, and subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary token supplementary estimate, the running cost limit for class X, vote 12 will be increased by £369,000 from £22,352,000 to £22,721,000 to cover certain payments to Property Holdings. This increase is financed by a transfer of provision from Property Holdings and an increase in receipts.

  Northern Ireland Court Service
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what changes have been made to the class X, vote 3 cash limit and running costs limit for the Northern Ireland court service.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class X, vote 3 has been increased by £1,226,000 from £19,086,000 to £20,312,000 and the running costs limit by £73,000 from £14,685,000 to £14,758,000. The increases arise because of additional costs incurred in respect of bomb damage to the number of court buildings, bomb damage to the Legal Aid Department's accommodation and the transferral from the Northern Ireland block of project costs for the child support legislation and the fixed penalty/points scheme.

  The increases will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total public expenditure.

  House Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many repossessions have been carried out in county courts since September 1992 by lenders who are not members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not collected.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes will be made to his Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1992–93.

  Mr. Brooke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  (i) The cash limit for class XII, vote I (museums, galleries and the heritage) will be increased by £1,606,000 to £222,289,000. The increase is the net result of additional provision for payments to Inland Revenue in respect of important heritage offers in lieu of tax (£4,325,000) partly offset from savings (£2,719,000) in the contributions made in lieu of rates by certain national museums and galleries. As announced in the Official Report, at columns 891–92, on 12 November 1992, part of the

  249
  achieved savings has also been used to meet the balance of Government support for the European arts festival in 1992 (£458,000) (class XII, vote 2) and administration costs associated with the creation of the Department of National Heritage (£1,218,000) (class XII, vote 4). The balance of the additional provision now required (some £3,300,000) will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  (ii) The departmental running costs limit will be reduced by £83,000, from £18,731,000 to £18,648,000, as a result of an adjustment to the provision transferred from the Department for Education, to reflect lower costs attributable to the Department of National Heritage for certain central support services.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Brooke
  A provisional list of regulations which impact on business has recently been put together. Consideration will be given to placing the list in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition.

  Television
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage under what authority the Independent Television Commission is making representations to the Monopolies Commission about the commercial arrangements made between production companies and broadcasters.

  Mr. Brooke
  Section 39 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 establishes the Independent Television Commission's role in the provision of networking arrangements for Channel 3.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to locate in Cardiff the(a) national headquarters and (b) regional sub-office for the south of the United Kingdom of the national lottery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The location of the operator of the national lottery will be a matter for the appointed licensee. Those companies tendering for the licence will be aware of the advantages of locating in an area receiving Government incentives.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to award the contract for the operation of the national lottery; when he expects the national lottery to be in operation; and in what year he expects the national heritage memorial fund to commence the distribution of moneys received from the national lottery distribution fund.

  Mr. Key
  The contract or licence for the operation of the national lottery will be awarded as soon as practicable after the National Lottery etc. Bill receives Royal Assent. It is hoped that the lottery will be operational towards the end of 1994. The National Heritage Memorial Fund should be in a position to distribute funds during 1995.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all the names of those he has appointed to public bodies, giving the period for which the appointment was made and the remuneration each currently receives; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage is still in the process of setting up a central database of public appointees and therefore the information to answer this question is not yet available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Office of Public Service and Science
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to change the 1992–93 cash limit or running costs limit for the Office of Public Service and Science.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for the Office of Public Service and Science (class XIX, vote 1) will be increased by a token £1,000 from £41,752,000 to £41,753,000. The Department's gross running costs limit will be decreased by £17,000 from £64,144,000 to £64,127,000. The principal changes being due to reductions in running cost cover for the Office of Science and Technology and for Chessington computer centre; and an increase in running cost cover for the CCTA.

  The running costs change also reflects the transfer of running costs from H.M. Treasury (class XVIII, vote 1) in respect of Chessington computer centre. The running cost limit for the Civil Service college has been decreased by £163,000 from £1,800,000 to £1,637,000 reflecting greater than anticipated receipts from the provision of training courses. The changes will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Science Vote
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes he proposes to the estimates class XI, vote 5 (Science) for 1992–93.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class XI, vote 5 (Science) will be increased by £1,551,000 from £1,050,181,000 to £1,051,732,000.

  Of the increase £480,000 is to enable the Royal Society to increase its programme of support for scientists in the former Soviet Union as part of the programme announced by the Prime Minister on 20 May 1992, at column 137. Of this £230,000 is offset by reductions in cash limits of £100,000 for class I, vote 1 (Ministry of Defence: personnel costs, support and other services), £50,000 for class IV, vote 2 (Department of Trade and Industry: support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration), £50,000 for class 3, vote 4 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Agricultural, Food and Fishing Services) and £30,000 for class XIX, vote 1 (Cabinet Office).

  The remaining £1,071,000 is to enable the Natural Environment Research Council to meet the costs of the

  251
  conversion of the RRS Discovery falling in 1992–93. The grant paid to the NERC in 1991–92 was reduced by this amount to take account of delay in the completion of this work.

  £230,000 of the increase will be offset and the remainder charged to the reserve, and so there will be no increase in the planned total of public expenditure as a result of these changes.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 28 October 1992,Official Report, column 668; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has made the following appointments since 28 October 1992:

  Civil Service appeal board

  Appointee

  Period of appointment

  Mrs. J. Collingridge1

  2 November 1992—28 February 1993

  Mrs. C. Coltman

  1 February 1993—31 January 1995

  Miss B. Findlay

  1 February 1993—31 January 1995

  Mr. J. Renton

  1 February 1993—31 January 1995

  Mrs. M. B. Sloman1

  2 November 1992—31 May 1995

  1 Re-appointed.

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Appointee

  Period of appointment

  Professor M. Anderson,1 2

  BA, MA, PHd, FRSA

  1 August 1993—31 July 1994

  1 Re-appointed.

  2 Professor Anderson receives an honorarium of £4,420, the same amount as the other members.

  Information is not held on the political affiliation of appointees other than where an hon. Member is appointed to a research council. No such appointments have been made by my right hon. Friend.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Press Gallery
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many offices and desks are currently allocated to the Press Gallery.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Twenty-two offices and 95 desks are currently allocated for use by the Press Gallery.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many telephones are currently allocated to the Press Gallery.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Press Gallery currently has 129 telephone lines allocated to it from the Palace of Westminster exchange. Of that number six are for administrative use by staff of the House.

  Car Parking (Journalists)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many car spaces in the underground car park are allocated to lobby journalists; what is the estimated annual value of this facility; and whether any charge is made.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Eighteen members of the Press Gallery have been issued with a permit which allows them to park on the fourth floor of the underground car park on a first-come-first-served basis. It is not possible without disproportionate cost, separately to identify the annual value of this facility. No revenue is received for its provision.

  Veal
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee how many times veal has been served in the canteens in the Palace of Westminster and Parliament street over the last year; and what was its country of origin on each occasion that it was served.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  This is a matter for the Director of Catering Services, but I understand that, at the request of our predecessor Committee, all veal purchased by the Refreshment Department continues to be of British origin.

  Security Costs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what is the cost of the policing of the Palace of Westminster; and what is the cost of the non-police security guards employed in the Palace.

  Mr. Beith
  Based on the latest available figures, the House of Commons' share of the annual cost (excluding VAT) of policing the parliamentary precincts (the Palace of Westminster and the parliamentary outbuildings) is estimated at £8 million, of which approximately £4.3 million is the cost of civilian staff including security officers, firemen and administrative staff.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Wing
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running cost limits for 1992–93.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates the cash limit for class II, vote 1 (overseas representation) will be increased by £16,668,000 from £721,101,000 to £737,769,000 and the gross running costs limit on the vote will be increased by £4,311,000 from £519,529,000 to £523,840,000. For class II, vote 2 (other external relations) the cash limit will be increased by £241,337,000 from £178,791,000 to £420,128,000; for class II, vote 3 (external broadcasting and monitoring) by £3,142,000 from £162,711,000 to £165,853,000 and for class II, vote 4 (the British Council) by £2,994,000 from £88,669,000 to £91,663,000.

  For vote 1 the cash limit increase of £16,668,000 is made up as follows: adverse overseas price movements

  253
  (£15,436,000), take up of capital end year flexibility (£829,000) as announced to the House by the Chief Secretary on 15 July 1992 (Official Report) columns 698–702), and transfers from other Government Departments (403,000) of which £173,000 is from Property Holding and £230,000 from the DTI.

  The increase in the gross running costs limit of £4,311,000 reflects adverse overseas price movements (£6,638,000), transfers from other Government Departments (£403,000) and a payment from the private sector for the Taejon exhibition (£70,000), offset by a transfer of £2,800,000 out of running costs into Vote 2.

  For vote 2 the cash limit increase of £241,337,000 is made up as follows: Programme increase (£204,312,000), adverse overseas price movements (£20,200,000), transfers from other Government Departments, (£525,000) of which £440,000 is from ODA and £85,000 from Department for Education, a transfer of provision from class II, vote 1 (£5,000,000), and an increase in VAT refunds (£11,300,000).

  For vote 3 the cash limit increase of £3,142,000 reflects take up of capital end year flexibility as announced to the House by the Chief Secretary on 15 July 1992 (Official Report columns 698–702).

  For vote 4 the cash limit increase of £2,994,000 is for adverse overseas price movements.

  All the increases will either be offset by underspends elsewhere or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Cambodia
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards, and what representations he is making to other countries in respect of, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We deplore the refusal of the Khmer Rouge to fulfil its obligations fully under the Paris agreements and to co-operate with the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia. We shall continue to work with the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and other countries closely involved in the Cambodian peace process to ensure that the Paris agreements are implemented as successfully as possible.

  Sudan
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the present problems in the Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are deeply concerned at the Sudanese Government's poor record on human rights, the lack of progress towards more accountable government acceptable to all parts of the country, continuing difficulties in the provision of humanitarian aid, and the Government's apparent equivocation towards international terrorism. The concern is widely shared, as witness the United Nations General Assembly's adoption by a huge majority of a resolution condemning Sudan's human rights record. We are with our European partners exploring means of maximising international pressure to induce the Sudanese Government to mend their ways.

  Jaffna
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when an official of the British High Commission in Colombo last visited Jaffna.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A member of the staff of the High Commission visited Jaffna in May 1990. Since the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam renewed fighting against the Sri Lankan Government in June 1990, visits have not been possible.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh; what plans there are to install NATO or United Nations observers in the region once a ceasefire has been arranged; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh continues, although fighting has slackened because of the harsh winter conditions there. Thousands have died as a result of this dispute and hundreds of thousands have been displaced, and impoverished by economic blockades associated with it. At the British initiative the CSCE started a year ago to mediate between the parties to this dispute. We welcome recent statements by the United Nations Secretary General and the Security Council Chairman that the CSCE should remain the focus for such talks, the latest round of which is due to be convened later this month. The CSCE has undertaken to deploy monitors to Nagorno-Karabakh, subject to a full and effective ceasfire. The details of this deployment are being worked out. NATO has promised support for this.

  United Nations Security Council
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with United Nations members, and permanent and non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with regard to the continuing necessity of(a) the veto and (b) permanent members in the light of post-cold war development;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the other members of the United Nations Security Council on extending (a) permanent and (b) non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received on extending (a) permanent and (b) non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Reform and revitalisation of United Nations institutions and the United Nations secretariat is a current subject of discussions in New York and in various bilateral and other meetings. The United Nations Special Committee on the charter regularly discusses Security Council reform at its meetings. Cuba and Libya have been active in recent years in pressing the case for abolition of the veto. The wish of Japan, currently a Security Council member, to become a permanent member is well known. At Maastricht, we agreed that Britain and France, as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, will in the execution of their
  255
  functions ensure the defence of the positions and the interests of the union without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations charter.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on reform of the United Nations Security Council; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on extending (a) permanent and (b) non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any reform of the current structure of the Security Council including expansion of permanent and non-permanent members would require an amendment to the United Nations charter, and negotiations on this would be long and complex. In the meantime we would wish to ensure that the Security Council continues to operate effectively.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 29 October 1992,Official Report, column 790; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The updated information is as follows:

  Public appointments

  Public body and name

  Appointment expires

  Remuneration

  Anglo-Irish Encounter

  Sir David Goodall

  Indefinite

  Nil

  Commonwealth Foundation

  Dr. J. B. Wood

  1996

  Nil

  Commonwealth Institute

  Mr. Stephen Cox

  1996

  £45,000 pa

  Mr. R. A. Fyjis-Walker

  1993

  £15,000 pa

  Sir Mark Russell

  1994

  Nil

  Mr. D. A. Thompson

  1994

  Nil

  Mr. Stuart Maclure

  1994

  Nil

  Mr. Cy Grant

  1994

  Nil

  Mr. G. Oakes

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. C. Shepherd

  1994

  Nil

  Dr. Ann Robinson

  1995

  Nil

  Miss Diane Warwick

  1993

  Nil

  Sir Victor Garland

  1993

  Nil

  Hon. David Douglas-Home

  1993

  Nil

  Lady Reid

  1993

  Nil

  Baroness Flather

  1996

  Nil

  Diplomatic Service Appeal Boards

  Sir Derek Day

  1993

  per diem expenses

  Mr. Frank Trew

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Sir David Culcutt, QC

  1993

  per diem expenses

  Sir Mark Russell

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mrs. Jacqueline Dyson

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mrs. Juliet Campbell

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Diplomatic Service Appeal Boards

  Mr. Rodney Bedford

  1993

  per diem expenses

  Miss Sally Bull

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine

  Sir Ewen Fergusson

  1998

  Nil

  Major John Surtees

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. David Cossart

  1993

  Nil

  Mr. Anthony Hanson

  1994

  Nil

  256

  Public body and name

  Appointment expires

  Remuneration

  Mr. Mark Savage

  1995

  Nil

  Imperial War Museum

  Sir E. Jackson

  1993

  Nil

  Mr. I. Smart

  1994

  Nil

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Sir Donald Tebbit

  Indefinite

  Nil

  Miss Sheila Browne

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. Sir James Ball

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. H. T. Dickinson

  1994

  Nil

  Sir Roger Banninster

  1994

  Nil

  Ms. Sue MacGregor

  1995

  Nil

  Sir Arthur Bryan

  1994

  Nil

  Dr. K. J. R. Edwards

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. Christine Bolt

  1995

  Nil

  Prof. Lord Desai

  1995

  Nil

  London University School of Oriental and African Studies

  Lord Wilson of Tillycorn

  1997

  Nil

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Sir James Spicer

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mr. George Robertson, MP

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Sir Russell Johnston, MP

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mr. Tony Clarke

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing, MP

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Prof. Peter Frank

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mr. Timothy Garton-Ash

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Lady Howe, JP

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mr. Gavin Laird

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mr. Ralph Land

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls, MP

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Dr. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Mr. Ian Taylor, MP

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Ms. Carol Tongue, MEP

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  Mr. Michael Kaser

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. John Drew

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Mr. John Scates

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. Connie Martin

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Prof. Jack Spence

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Mr. John Hanson

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. Janet Morgan

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. Bruce George, MP

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. John Lyons

  1995

  Nil

  Mrs. Liliana Archibald

  1995

  Nil

  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, MP

  1993

  Nil

  Sir Julian Bullard

  1993

  Nil

  Ms. Brenda Dean

  1994

  Nil

  Wilton Park Departmental Board

  Miss Valerie Le Moignan

  1995

  Nil

  Miss Ruth Watts Davies

  1995

  Nil

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  Sir Michael Caine

  1993

  Nil

  Dr. A. Sloman

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. R. A. Howie

  1994

  Nil

  Prof. B. Clayton

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. J. G. G. Ledingham

  1995

  Nil

  Mrs. D. L. Wedderburn

  1994

  Nil

  Prof. S. Marks

  1995

  Nil

  Prof. Gillian Beer

  1993

  Nil

  Dr. C. Booth

  1995

  Nil

  Dr. R. O. Iredale

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Mr. P. Parsloe

  1995

  Nil

  Prof. A. Little

  1993

  Nil

  Prof. D. Jennings

  1993

  Nil

  Mr. R. Francis

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Prof. A. Diplock

  1994

  Nil

  Overseas Service Pension Scheme

  J. V. Kerby

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  D. S. Fish

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  257

  Public body and name

  Appointment expires

  Remuneration

  C. D. Stenton

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Miss D. R. Phillips

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  D. H. Loades

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Indian Family Pension Scheme

  Mr. D. S. Fish

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Maj. Gen. D. L. T. Horsford

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Major R. J. Henderson

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Lt. Col. P. Kemmis-Betty

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Major R. Mottram

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Mr. R. V. Fenton

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Mr. J. M. Phelps

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Mr. J. P. C. Coventry

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Mrs. P. Lamarque

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Mrs. M. Ramsay-Brown

  Unspecified

  per diem expenses

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Sir Peter E. Leslie

  1995

  £12,000

  Sir Michael Caine

  1994

  £5,001 - £10,000 band

  Mrs. A. E. Wright, JP

  1994

  £1 - £5,000 band

  Prof. M. L. O. Faber

  1994

  Mr. M. McWilliam

  1995

  Mr. E. B. Waide

  1995

  Prof. I. D. Carruthers

  1995

  Mr. J. B. Zochonis

  1995

  Crown Agents1

  Mr. D. H. Probert

  1993

  £30,000

  Dr. A. I. Lenton

  1993

  £5,001 - £10,000 band

  Mr. P. F. Berry

  1994

  £65,1002

  Mrs. D. Miller, MBE, JP

  1993

  £5,000 - £10,000 band

  Miss K. Mortimer

  1993

  Mr. A. K. Stewart-Roberts

  1993

  Mr. F. Cassell

  1994

  Mr. J. D. Andrews

  1995

  Mr. F. I. Sumner

  1995

  1 When members are appointed to this board they are also appointed to the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board.

  2 Excluding pension contributions.

  ODA Advisory Committee on Economic and Social Research Overseas

  Mr. J. B. Wilmshurst

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Mr. R. Allen

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. S. Conlin

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. R. Thomas

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Ms. C. Coppard

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Miss R. Philipson

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Mr. P. J. Ackroyd

  Ex-officio

  Nil

  Dr. C. O. N. Moser

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Prof. A. W. Rew

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Prof. J. F. J. Toye

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Dr. H. Afshar

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Prof. P. Blaikie

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Prof. K. Davey

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Ms. D. Elson

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Dr. J. Heyer

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Prof. N. Stern

  1995

  per diem expenses

  Note: For Crown Agents and Commonwealth Development Corporation, figures are taken from 1991 published accounts.

  Information on the exact period for which each appointment was made and the relevant qualifications of the appointees is not held centrally.

  There are eight appointments vacant across four committees.

  The Irish Pensions Appeals Tribunal has been wound up.

  Information on the political affiliation of appointees is not held centrally. Appointees who are Members of Parliament or Members of the European Parliament are so designated in the list.

  Council of Europe
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs information he has received concerning plans for Azerbaijan and Armenia to seek membership of the Council of Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have applied for special guest in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, though not to join the Council itself. This is a matter for the Parliamentary Assembly itself, but I understand that both applications are going through the usual channels. The Council secretariat has discussed with Armenia and Azerbaijan areas for future co-operation.

  Azerbaijan
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the current political, economic and civil circumstances of the Armenian community resident in Azerbaijan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Most of the Armenian community in Azerbaijan live in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Their economic conditions are dire as the result of an armed dispute over the region's future since 1988. We have given £250,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross for relief work in Nagorno-Karabakh. We fully support talks under the auspices of the CSCE to settle this dispute and believe that the only solution likely to be stable should involve autonomy for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh under Azerbaijani sovereignty. Elsewhere in Azerbaijan around 20,000 Armenians remain. Most of these are in mixed marriages with Azeris. Over 200,000 Armenians have fled Azerbaijan. We have provided £200,000 to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for relief work amongst Armenian refugees.

  Peru
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Peru.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom and Peru have traditionally enjoyed good relations. Following recent steps towards the restoration of democracy, including elections to the constituent congress, we and our EC partners continue to review the measures, including the suspension of most aid, adopted after President Fujimori suspended constitutional government in April 1992.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Peru on human rights issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We take every opportunity, both bilaterally and with our EC partners, to emphasise to the Peruvian authorities the level of concern felt here about human rights violations, most recently, I raised the matter with President Fujimori when I visited Peru from 7–9 January 1993.

  EC-Israel Co-operation Council
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of the EC-Israel Co-operation Council on 1 February.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The EC-Israel Co-operation Council on 1 February reviewed co-operation under the 1975 agreement, and agreed that the Commission should continue its exploratory discussions on updating this agreement. EC Foreign Ministers subsequently reiterated their support for the peace process and repeated their condemnation of the Israeli deportation of over 400 Palestinians which risked endangering the peace process and preventing the updating of the agreement.

  Palestinian Deportees
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States of America on the appropriate steps that they will take to ensure Israel complies with UN Security Council resolution No. 799 regarding the Palestinian deportees.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has discussed the question of the Palestinian deportees with the new US Secretary of State. They have agreed to work closely together to ensure the earliest possible resolution of the problem.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the imposition of sanctions against Israel with regard to the Palestinian deportees.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received some letters on the subject of the Palestinian deportees, some of which call for sanctions to be imposed on Israel. We do not believe that the adoption of sanctions against Israel would be helpful to the prospects for the peace process, which remains the best hope for all the parties to resolve their differences.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the annual figures on plutonium for 1991–92 will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is being published today and copies of the press release placed in the Library of the House.

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his most recent estimate of the contribution made by the United Kingdom tobacco industry towards the United Kingdom balance of payments.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom had a crude trade surplus1 in manufactured tobacco products2 worth £614.9 million in 1991 and £727.4 million in January to November 1992.
  260
  1. Crude trade surplus = exports (fob) less imports (cif).

  2. Manufactured tobacco products are defined as heading 122 of the Standard International Trade Classification (revision 3).

  Pneumoconiosis
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the average length of service of miners who have subsequently been affected by pneumoconiosis;

  (2) what sums have been paid in compensation to former miners suffering from pneumoconiosis in each of the last 10 years, together with the average figure paid to individuals for each of those years.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Fuel Report
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will commission Caminus Energy Consultants to prepare a report investigating the comparative cost advantages of gas, nuclear power and coal; and if he will ensure that their report is made available to the House at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Eggar
  The relative costs of electricity generated from different sources are being considered as part of the coal review. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 14 December, at column 25, Ernst and Young has been appointed to assist in the examination of the avoidable costs of nuclear generation and related issues. There are no plans to commission further work in this area.

  KS Construction Ltd.
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report from the liquidators of KS Construction Ltd. on the conduct of its directors in the two years prior to its liquidation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A return under rule 4, the Insolvent Companies (Reports on Conduct of Directors) No. 2 Rules 1986, was submitted by the liquidator of KS Construction Ltd on 21 October 1989.

  Liquidation (Directors' Conduct)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average time between a company entering into liquidation and his Department receiving a report on the conduct of the directors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The statistics requested are not kept by my Department.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the caseload of the insolvency service in each year since 1989 and the average processing time per case each year since 1989.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The following number of compulsory insolvencies fell to be dealt with by official receivers.
  261

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19921

  Bankruptcies

  8,138

  12,058

  22,632

  32,106

  Compulsory liquidations

  4,020

  5,977

  8,368

  9,732

  TOTAL

  12,158

  18,035

  31,000

  41,838

  1 Provisional.

  In addition, the service's disqualification unit dealt with the following number of reports/returns by insolvency practitioners under the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualifications Act 1986:

  Numbers

  1989

  6,537

  1990

  12,463

  1991

  18,509

  1992

  20,468

  Information on the average processing time per case is not maintained and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A provisional list of regulations which impact on business has recently been put together. Consideration will be given to placing the list in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition.

  Radioactive Products (Safety) Regulations
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to issue the Radioactive Products (Safety) Regulations.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government have decided not to proceed with making the Radioactive Products (Safety) Regulations, which would have implemented directive 80/836/Euratom, as amended, following a recomtnendation from the European Commission not to proceed with such legislation in view of the Commission's intention to make proposals for revising this directive.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to amend the payment of nuclear levey money towards the construction cost of Sizewell B; and what consultations he has had with the Office of Electricity Regulation and with Nucler Electric on such amendments.

  Mr. Eggar
  The coal review currently being undertaken by my Department is considering the implications of the non fossil fuel obligation and the operation of the fossil fuel levy.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions exist on the purposes on which Nuclear Electric may spend payments received from the 262
  nuclear levey; what amounts and proportion of such funds have been spent on (a) decommissioning costs and (b) other costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Nuclear Electric receives income from two main sources: premimum payments on a given proportion of its output, which is financed by the levy; and revenue from electricity sales into the pool. From this total income —the management of which is the responsibility of Nuclear Electric's board—the company must finance its current operations and make provisions in respect of longer term liabilities. Income from the levy is not hypothecated to any one activity. Nuclear Electric's payments against provisions are clearly set out in the company's report and accounts, a copy of which rests in the Library of the House of Commons.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the United Kingdom currently contributes towards funding the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if he will list figures for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 26 October 1992 at column 515.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes are being made to his Department's cash limits and nationalised industries' external financing limits for 1992–93.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates the cash limit for class IV, vote 2 (support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration) will be increased by £4,094,000 from £804,231,000 to £808,325,000 and the cash limit on class V, vote 2 (research and development and industrial support) will be increased by £11,450,000 from £340,375,000 to £351,825,000. The cash limit for class V, vote 3 (administration) will be reduced by £500,000 from £19,506,000 to £19,006,000. The increases will be met by offsets or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The increase on class IV, vote 2 comprises £2,145,000 in respect of the administration costs of companies' late filing penalties and £6,000,000 (£1,000,000 of which comes from reductions to existing programmes) in respect of English Industrial Estates Corporation to offset reduced receipts as a result of the downturn in the property market. An increase of £500,000 is made in running costs in respect of transferred provision from class V, vote 3 and a decrease in capital spending results in a transfer of £3,200,000 to class V, vote 2. Extra receipts amounting to £351,000 are declared in respect of payments by the Department of Health to the Radiocommunications Agency.

  The increase on class V, vote 2 for £11,450,000 is made up of a transfer of £3,200,000 from class IV, vote 2 to cover consultancy costs of the coal review and compensation costs arising from litigation relating to leukaemia cases. A further increase of £8,250,000 provides for a contribution to finance improvements in nuclear safety in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. An offsetting reduction of £8,250,000 is made in the

  263
  external financing limit of Nuclear Electric from £278,000,000 to £286,250,000. The external financing limit of the British Coal Corporation changes to £795,000,000 resulting from increased costs including expenditure in respect of current year voluntary redundancies, increased working capital requirements and environmental restoration at former mining sites.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he proposes to the cash or running costs limits for the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit of the Office of Fair Trading will be reduced by £57,000 from £18,246,000 to £18,189,000. The reduction represents a sum to be surrendered to the consolidated fund in respect of the office's contribution to the transfer value of Sir Bryan Carsberg's pension following his appointment as director general.

  Office of Telecommunications
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he plans to announce to the cash or running costs limits for the Office of Telecommunications.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit is being reduced by £182,000 from £7,939,000 to £7,757,000 and the running costs limit will be reduced by £110,000 from £7,069,000 to £6,959,000. The reduction represents a sum to be surrendered to the Consolidation Fund in respect of Sir Bryan Carsberg's accrued superannuation contributions.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the RECHAR grants(a) applied for, (b) awarded and (c) outstanding in Nottinghamshire since the start of the RECHAR programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the East Midlands RECHAR programme, 146 applications have been submitted by Nottinghamshire sponsors, seeking ERDF grant to the value of £9.86 million. Of these, 20 applications with a value of £3.16 million in ERDF grant have been approved so far. The remaining applications are being evaluated.

DEFENCE

  AWE, Aldermaston
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the name of the contractor company who will operate the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The tender evaluation process for the competition to appoint a contractor to operate all the sites of the atomic weapons establishment has now been completed and Hunting-BRAE Ltd. has been declared the winner. Vesting day for full contractor operation of the atomic weapons establishment remains set for 1 April 1993.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he plans to announce to the class I cash limits and running costs limit for 1992–93.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the spring Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made:

  Class I cash limits

  Vote

  Current Cash limit £'000s

  Change £'000s

  Revised Cash limit £'000s

  1

  10,666,157

  +156,323

  10,822,480

  2

  9,390,603

  -222,000

  9,168,603

  3

  1,898,876

  + 74,078

  1,972,954

  4

  1,728,873

  -212,505

  1,516,368

  5

  555,005

  - 55,000

  500,005

  These changes decrease the block defence cash limit by £259,104,000 from £24,239,514,000 to £23,980,410,000. They allow for increased expenditure on class I, votes 1 and 3 which will be offset by lower expenditure on class I, votes 2, 4 and 5. The changes additionally take account of decreases of £209,665,000 to compensate for an overspend on class I, votes 2, 4 and 5 in the financial year 1991–92 and of £50,000,000 to reflect a forecast underspend against certain elements of provision which are subject to specific limits. Also reflected is the net effect of transfers between the Ministry of Defence and other Government departments.

  The running costs limit will be increased by £163,145,000 from £5,318,374,000 to £5,481,519,000. £162,589,000 of this increase results from the continued rationalisation of activities to meet the new force structure. This involves the transfer of certain administrative tasks into the running costs total and does not add to the overall level of Defence expenditure. The increase also reflects an interdepartmental transfer of £556,000 from Property Holdings.

  RAF Police
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the provisions governing legal powers of members of the RAF police with regard to traffic control while on duty escorting military vehicles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the circumstances described the main task of the RAF police is to control the military vehicles being escorted. The powers of RAF policemen in relation to the control of service traffic are derived from the Air Force Act 1955. They have no powers with regard to civilian traffic control.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the pool of WE177 nuclear weapons was allocated to the Royal Navy prior to the decision to eliminate the Royal Navy's tactical nuclear capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to divulge information about our nuclear weapon holdings.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement about the future of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I hope to be able to make an announcement about future service hospital requirements soon.

  Civilian Staff (Woolwich)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian full-time equivalents are employed in each of the military establishments in Woolwich; and how many are likely to be(a) redeployed and (b) made redundant as a result of proposed changes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 1,806 civilian full time equivalents employed in Woolwich units. The breakdown is as follows:

  Unit

  Civilian staff

  Families Housing and Welfare Service, Royal Artillery Barracks

  13

  Area Accommodation Stores, Repository Road

  24

  Director General Fighting Vehicles Equipment, Royal Arsenal (West)

  1

  Headquarters Director Royal Artillery, Royal Artillery Barracks

  16

  Headquarters Woolwich Garrison, Government House, New Road

  23

  Regimental Headquarters Royal Artillery, Government House

  17

  Royal Artillery Institute, Royal Military Academy

  19

  Army Security Vetting Unit, Royal Military Academy

  139

  Headquarters Director Educational and Training Service, Royal Military Academy

  16

  Defence Medical Equipment Adviser

  1

  Area Civilian Staff Management, London District East/Central, Royal Artillery Barracks

  11

  17 Training Regiment, Royal Artillery Barracks

  88

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Stadium Road

  181

  Vehicles and Weapons Branch, Ha Ha Road

  27

  56 Squadron Royal Corps of Transport, Repository Road

  23

  Engineering Management Support (Ordnance), Building 22, Royal Arsenal (West)

  66

  Land Systems Technical Publications Authority, Ha Ha Road

  132

  Army Scaling and Cataloguing Authority, Ha Ha Road

  164

  Common Services (Publications and Stationery) 3, Building 25A, Royal Arsenal (West)

  52

  London Movements Unit (RAF), Building 53, Royal Arsenal (West)

  17

  31 Army Education Centre, Royal Artillery Barracks

  2

  Army Dental Centre, Royal Artillery Barracks

  1

  Central Volunteers Headquarters, Royal Artillery Barracks

  3

  266

  Unit

  Civilian staff

  Woolwich Garrison Officers Mess, Royal Military Academy

  3

  Head of Administration Royal Arsenal Woolwich

  767

  Total

  1,806

  It is not yet possible to say what numbers may be redeployed or made redundant.

  Greenwich Health Authority
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when officers from his Department last communicated with representatives of the Greenwich health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The most recent substantive contact between my Department and the Greenwich health authority took place in December last year.

  Travel Warrants
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 35, what percentage discount was applied to the rail travel fares covered by travel warrants issued by the armed forces in 1991–92.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is commercially confidential and cannot be released.

  Bombing (Korea)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the bombing of the 1 Battalion of the Argylls in Korea on 23 September 1950 by the USAF; what response he has made; whether he will make the relevant files available to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he plans to his Department's cash limits for 1993–93.

  Mr. Gummer
  The cash limit for class III, vote 2 (Intervention Board—Executive Agency's administration) will be reduced by £3,000,000 from £47,774,000 to £44,774,000, reflecting reduced expenditure in the payments for agents' services. It will be offset by an increase of £3,000,000 to the cash limit on class III vote 5 to reflect lower receipts by the Ministry and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The vote 5 cash limit will be increased from £263,095,000 to £266,095,000 subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate.

  At the same time the cash limit for class III vote 4 (agricultural, food and fishing services) will be reduced by £3,637,000 from £350,056,000 to £346,419,000. Expenditure will be reduced by £493,000 on agricultural grant schemes; £1,600,000 on coast protection and by

  267
  £1,544,000 on sea fishery support. These reductions reflect a predicted decrease in demand and delay in implementation in further areas of these schemes.

  HLCAs
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many producers are entitled to hill livestock compensatory allowances in Northumberland; and how many of those are located in severely disadvantaged areas.

  Mr. Gummer
  Under the 1991 (the latest year for which complete figures are available) hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme a total of 1,046 applications were submitted in respect of holdings in Northumberland of which 652 related wholly to severely disadvantaged land.

  Average net farm income on livestock farms wholly or partly in the Severely Disadvantaged Area in England

  Year1

  Mainly sheep farms

  Cattle and sheep farms

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  £'000 per farm

  Indices2

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices4

  Current prices

  Real terms4

  Current prices

  1991–92 prices4

  Current prices

  Real terms4

  1978–793

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8.8

  23.3

  121

  298

  1979–803

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4.2

  9.7

  55

  118

  1980–813

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6.1

  12.0

  77

  141

  1981–823

  11.1

  19.6

  100

  167

  9.4

  16.6

  141

  232

  1982–833

  8.1

  13.3

  84

  130

  9.2

  15.1

  127

  195

  1983–84

  10.8

  16.9

  87

  129

  7.8

  12.2

  107

  157

  1984–85

  9.4

  14.0

  79

  111

  9.6

  14.3

  121

  169

  1985–86

  11.9

  16.8

  101

  135

  10.1

  14.2

  122

  161

  1986–87

  9.1

  12.4

  89

  114

  8.0

  10.9

  97

  123

  1987–88

  9.9

  13.0

  102

  126

  11.8

  15.5

  131

  160

  1988–89

  12.7

  15.8

  135

  159

  15.6

  19.4

  163

  190

  1989–90

  7.5

  8.6

  92

  100

  10.6

  12.2

  112

  121

  1990–91

  7.7

  8.1

  78

  78

  7.2

  7.6

  73

  72

  1991–925

  11.0

  11.0

  130

  123

  12.0

  12.0

  115

  107

  1992–935

  14.2

  13.7

  167

  152

  12.5

  12.1

  119

  108

  Notes:

  1 Accounting years ending on average in February.

  2 1989–90—1991–92=100.

  3 The estimates for these years are not strictly comparable with those for later years.

  4 This information has been derived by deflating the current price estimates by the Retail Price Index.

  5 Estimates and forecasts at the time of the 1992 autumn review of the economic conditions in the hills and uplands.

  Potato Regime
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European Commission proposals for a potato regime are currently before the European Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Gummer
  The proposals for a very lightweight regime are set out in COM(92)185 final which was published in the Official Journal No. C333 on 17 December 1992. The December Agriculture Council asked for further work to be done by the special committee for agriculture to progress the Commission's proposals including the addition of provision for marketing standards and for it to be referred back to the Council for decision as soon as the European Parliament has given its opinion.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

  Farm Incomes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the net farm income for sheep and sheep and cattle farms in severely disadvantaged areas, in both nominal and real terms, for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Gummer
  Estimates of net farm income, based on results of sample surveys are provided in the following table. Year to year comparison can best be made by reference to the indices shown in the table, which are based on results from constant samples of farms.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

  Export Licences
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will combine in one Department the granting of export licences and the enforcement of the law relating to export matters.

  The Prime Minister
  Issues such as this need to await Lord Justice Scott's report on exports of defence equipment and dual use goods to Iraq.

  Turkey
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has held with the Prime Minister of Turkey concerning the current circumstances surrounding the relationship between Turkey and Armenia; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not discussed this subject with the Turkish Prime Minister.
  269
  However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs discussed the situation with our Community partners. As a result of these discussions, the EC made a demarche to Turkey on 29 January asking it to allow the transit of humanitarian aid through its territory. We have not been assured by the Turkish authorities that they will permit such transit subject to monitoring under standard CSCE procedures.

  Azerbaijan
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the current state of the embargo on the supply of weapons to Azerbaijan and surrounding communities issued by the conference on security and co-operation in Europe on 28 February 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  The CSCE's embargo on the supply of arms to the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute still applies. The Government adhere to this fully and have not approved licences for the export of any military equipment to Azerbaijan or Armenia. Nor will we do so. Indeed, during the CSCE Ministerial Council in Stockholm in December we called for an extension of this embargo to cover military assistance to the region generally.

  Woolwich Arsenal Site
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake a comparative study of the employment effects of any tax or consumer subsidy for deep coal mining with the projected cost of new jobs at the Greenwich city challenge proposal on the Woolwich Arsenal site.

  The Prime Minister
  The most suitable comparison for any city challenge bid is with other city challenge bids, and the Greenwich proposal has already been compared in this way.

EDUCATION

  Departmental Building
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost of the new building for his Department in Great Smith street.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government rent Sanctuary Buildings from Land Securities who met the full construction costs. The final costs of fitting out the building, which is the responsibility of the Department, have not yet been settled. It is estimated that these costs, including fees and VAT, will amount to just over £11 million.

  Schools (Repairs and Maintenance)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was spent in the last year for which figures are available on repairs and maintenance in state schools in England and Wales.

  Mr. Forth
  Expenditure on repairs and maintenance in state nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England came to £560.3 million in the financial year 1990–91 (the latest year available). This figure excludes salary costs for maintenance staff.

  Expenditure data for Wales are collected separately and are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 28 October 1992,Official Report, columns 673–5; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. Boswell
  The details requested are given in the table. Information on the political affiliation of appointees is not kept centrally, but we are satisfied that appointments to this Department's public bodies are made solely on the basis of aptitude, merit and suitability.

  Names of appointments to public bodies

  Period of appointment

  Remuneration

  Business and Technology Education Council

  Mr. P. Rogers CBE (Chairman)

  1 year

  £16,450 pa

  Mrs. G. Armitage

  1 year

  —

  Mr. B. Barker MBE

  1 year

  —

  Mr. D. Betts

  1 year

  —

  Dr. J. Capey

  1 year

  —

  Mr. R. Davies

  1 year

  —

  Mrs. P. Haikin

  1 year

  —

  Mr. G. Hawkes

  1 year

  —

  Dr. P. Hunter

  1 year

  —

  Mr. M. Lickiss

  1 year

  —

  Mr. M. Neal CBE

  1 year

  —

  Mr. K. Ratcliffe

  1 year

  —

  Mr. J. Spence

  1 year

  —

  The Members named above have all been re-appointed to the Council.

  Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

  Prof. R. Alexander

  2 years

  —

  Mr. J. Burn

  2 years

  —

  Dr. M. Frazer CBE

  2 years

  —

  Prof. A. O'Hear

  2 years

  —

  The Members named above have all been re-appointed to the Council.

  Higher Education Funding Council (E)

  Mr. M. Fallon

  2.5 years

  £4,000 pa*

  * Members of the Higher Education Funding Council (England) receive an honorarium of £4,000 per annum.

  English
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from individuals and groups in the London borough of Greenwich regarding the English SAT; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Members for Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Cambridge (Ms. Anne Campbell) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) on 2 February,Official Report, column 123. My right hon. Friend has had representations from various individuals and groups, including some from the London borough of Greenwich.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will visit Thamesmead to meet teachers and parents to discuss primary school provision in the area.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average size of primary school, including both infant and junior, and how many one-form entry primary schools exist, by education authority and nationally.

  Mr. Forth
  The average size of maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England in January 1992 is given in the table. Information on the number of maintained primary schools which operate a one-form entry system is not collected centrally.

  Average Size of Maintained Primary Schools in each LEA in England January 1992

  LEA

  Average size (Number of pupils)

  City

  221

  Camden

  256

  Greenwich

  269

  Hackney

  233

  Hammersmith

  227

  Islington

  255

  Kensington and Chelsea

  229

  Lambeth

  240

  Lewisham

  271

  Southwark

  265

  Tower Hamlets

  272

  Wandsworth

  242

  Westminster

  215

  Barking

  285

  Barnet

  263

  Bexley

  270

  Brent

  335

  Bromley

  254

  Croydon

  256

  Ealing

  299

  Enfield

  327

  Haringey

  242

  Harrow

  357

  Havering

  261

  Hillingdon

  269

  Hounslow

  305

  Kingston upon Thames

  286

  Merton

  302

  Newham

  359

  Redbridge

  327

  Richmond upon Thames

  259

  Sutton

  301

  Waltham Forest

  315

  Birmingham

  318

  Coventry

  267

  Dudley

  332

  Sandwell

  281

  Solihull

  272

  Walsall

  262

  Wolverhampton

  234

  Knowsley

  287

  Liverpool

  271

  St. Helens

  240

  Sefton

  286

  Wirral

  292

  Bolton

  251

  Bury

  229

  Manchester

  265

  Oldham

  239

  Rochdale

  276

  272

  LEA

  Average size (Number of pupils)

  Salford

  255

  Stockport

  223

  Tameside

  270

  Trafford

  252

  Wigan

  239

  Barnsley

  217

  Doncaster

  231

  Rotherham

  210

  Sheffield

  253

  Bradford

  240

  Calderdale

  205

  Kirklees

  221

  Leeds

  250

  Wakefield

  219

  Gateshead

  213

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  262

  North Tyneside

  261

  South Tyneside

  253

  Sunderland

  279

  Isles of Scilly

  43

  Avon

  211

  Bedfordshire

  188

  Berkshire

  218

  Buckinghamshire

  212

  Cambridgeshire

  219

  Cheshire

  191

  Cleveland

  320

  Cornwall

  157

  Cumbria

  136

  Derbyshire

  184

  Devon

  174

  Dorset

  221

  Durham

  187

  East Sussex

  225

  Essex

  208

  Gloucestershire

  159

  Hampshire

  219

  Herefordshire and Worcester

  165

  Hertfordshire

  185

  Humberside

  233

  Isle of Wight

  154

  Kent

  215

  Lancashire

  210

  Leicestershire

  238

  Lincolnshire

  164

  Norfolk

  154

  North Yorkshire

  144

  Northamtonshire

  183

  Northumberland

  147

  Nottinghamshire

  212

  Oxfordshire

  164

  Shropshire

  160

  Somerset

  149

  Staffordshire

  221

  Suffolk

  167

  Surrey

  201

  Warwickshire

  185

  West Sussex

  208

  Wiltshire

  152

  England

  216

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average size of primary school and the number of primary schools with one year entry in the private sector.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992 there were on average 153 pupils in each independent school in England attended mainly by pupils of primary school age. Information on the numbers of such schools which operate a one-form entry system is not collected centrally.

  Discretionary Awards
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many discretionary awards, for each category of course of study, were given by each local education authority in each year since 1985;

  (2) how many discretionary awards were given by each local education authority in each year since 1985 to students following vocational training courses in dance.

  Mr. Boswell
  Data on discretionary awards, distinguishing course of study, are not held centrally.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes he plans to announce to cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1992–93.

  Mr. Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limits for class XI, vote 2, Higher and further education, vote 4, Administration, and vote 7, Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, will be increased, and the cash limit for vote 1, Schools, research and miscellaneous services, will be reduced. The cash limit changes are as follows:

  Class and Vote

  Current cash limit £

  Change £

  Revised cash limit £

  XI. 1

  768,366,000

  -22,471,000

  745,895,000

  XI.2

  3,036,990,000

  + 2,550,000

  3,039,540,000

  XI.4

  109,993,000

  + 1,000

  110,994,000

  XI.7

  1,000

  + 1,000

  2,000

  The reduction to the cash limit on class XI, vote 1, includes a reduction of £15,000,000 as a contribution towards offsetting the increase of £195,000,000 sought via a Supplementary Estimate for class XI, vote 3, Student Awards, which is not cash limited. It also includes a reduction of £2,280,000 million to offset part of the increase to the cash limit on class XI, vote 2; a transfer of £85,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, class II, vote 2, in respect of the funding of students coming to the United Kingdom under the European Community TEMPUS programme; and a transfer of £5,106,000 to supplementary credit approvals to local education authorities for school building works which is non-voted expenditure.

  The increase on class XI, vote 2 includes an increase of £1,460,000 in capital grant to the Royal College of Art for final settlement of costs from the major project to rationalise the college's accommodation; an increase of £720,000 in recurrent grant-in-aid to the Universities Funding Council in respect of the extra costs for universities arising from the implementation for clinical academic staff of the 1992 pay award recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body; and an increase of £100,000 in provisions for bursaries for the training of teachers in shortage subjects. These increases are wholly offset within the reduction to the cash limit on class XI, vote 1. In addition there is a further increase of £140,000 in recurrent grant-in-aid to the Universities Funding Council in respect of additional places sponsored by the Home Office on social work training courses at universities, wholly offset by a transfer of funds from the
  274
  Home Office; and an addition of £130,000 in provision of recurrent grant-in-aid to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to reflect the transfer of responsibility to polytechnics and colleges for funding extended and upgraded training courses in social work wholly offset by a transfer of funding from the Department of Health.

  The token increases on class XI, votes 4 and 7 enable an adjustment to be made in the transfer of funds between the Department for Education's administration vote and the vote for the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector for schools in England which I announced on 12 November 1992, Official Report, columns 893–94. Within the vote totals, the Department's running costs limit has been reduced by £5,000 from £95,598,000 to £95,593,000 as a result of this adjustment. OHMCI's running costs limit has been increased by £69,000 from £7,818,000 to £7,887,000.

  The increases are either offset elsewhere or are charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total for public expenditure.

  Staffordshire (Musical Performances)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what response he is making to the invitation he has received to attend the performance of the Staffordshire youth wind orchestra and the Staffordshire youth big band and massed music centre choirs on 14 March.

  Mr. Boswell
  No such invitation has been received as yet.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes are being made in the 1992–93 cash limit and running costs limits for expenditure by Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on the external assistance vote (class II, vote 5) will be reduced by £439,000 from £1,797,199,000 to £1,796,760,000. The reduction is necessary to allow for a transfer of £440,000 to the Diplimatic Wing's programme for assistance to eastern Europe (class II, vote 2). The gross running costs limit for the ODA has been reduced by £300,000 from £47,354,000 to £47,054,000. This allows for a transfer of resources to enable the net running cost control limit of the Natural Resources Institute to be increased by £200,000 from £1,100,000 to £1,300,000 for relocation costs. It also allows for a £100,000 increase in the capital expenditure subhead of the administration section to meet the cost of office works. The decrease in the cash limit on this vote will be offset by an increase of £440,000 on class II, vote 2.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Geriatric Medicine, Banbridge
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of admissions and the number of discharges and deaths in geriatric medicine in each hospital in the southern area other than Banbridge
  275
  hospital of persons resident in Banbridge district in each month since August 1991 to the present, showing the number in such care at the end of each month.

  Hospital

  Quarter ending

  Admissions

  Deaths and discharges

  Number in care at end of quarter

  Lurgan

  September 1991

  35

  30

  17

  December 1991

  34

  37

  11

  Craigavon

  September 1991

  0

  0

  0

  December 1991

  0

  1

  0

  Mullinure

  September 1991

  0

  0

  0

  December 1991

  2

  0

  2

  Daisy Hill

  September 1991

  0

  0

  1

  December 1991

  0

  1

  0

  1 This data is taken from the hospital in-patient system. The information is provisional. Data for 1992 is not yet available.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of admissions and the number of discharges and deaths in geriatric medicine in Banbridge hospital in each month since August 1991 to the present, showing the number in such care at the end of each month.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest available information is as follows:

  Quarter Ending

  Admissions1

  Deaths and Discharges2

  Number in care at end of quarter2

  September 1991

  13

  18

  26

  December 1991

  8

  10

  24

  March 1992

  N/A

  8

  22

  June 1992

  N/A

  4

  21

  September 1992

  N/A

  5

  21

  Hospital

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Ards

  987

  950

  936

  959

  Belfast City

  2912

  2,871

  2,913

  2,853

  Downe

  671

  705

  734

  709

  Lagan Valley

  1,232

  1,341

  1,319

  1,306

  Mater

  860

  895

  926

  1,090

  Royal Maternity

  2,634

  3,159

  3,309

  3,304

  Ulster

  2,059

  1,905

  1,988

  2,035

  Ballymena Cottage

  106

  80

  57

  34

  Carrickfergus1

  61

  —

  —

  —

  Dalriada1

  17

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Ulster

  954

  900

  891

  851

  Moyle

  606

  596

  599

  587

  Robinson Memorial

  224

  310

  274

  168

  Route

  1,025

  990

  1,093

  1,022

  Waveney

  1,532

  1,544

  1,465

  1,524

  Banbridge1

  96

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon Area

  2,282

  2,313

  2,286

  2,287

  Daisy Hill

  1,802

  1,754

  1,776

  1,668

  South Tyrone

  908

  959

  934

  895

  Tower Hill Maternity1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Altnagelvin

  3,064

  2,924

  2,885

  2,846

  Erne

  926

  870

  815

  732

  Tyrone County

  1,014

  1,007

  981

  970

  Northern Ireland

  26,022

  26,073

  26,181

  25,840

  1 Maternity services were no longer provided at these hospitals after 1988–89 financial year.

  276
  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest available information for residents of Banbridge district council is as follows:

  1 This data is taken from the hospital in-patient System. The 1991 information is provisional and the 1992 information is not yet available.

  2 This data, which is only available on a quarterly basis, was obtained from the Korner Aggregate Returns which do not record place of residence.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of live births in each hospital in Northern Ireland in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the number of live births in each hospital in Northern Ireland for the financial years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92:

  Companies (Relocation)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the number of companies which have relocated from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland in the last three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am aware of two companies which relocated from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland in this period.

  Polling Stations
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the chief electoral officer intends to take to consult political parties in Northern Ireland on the new polling station scheme.

  Mr. Hanley
  The chief electoral officer will publish a new draft polling station scheme and invite comments on it shortly after the electoral register is published on 15 February. Any elector or group of electors may make objections to or proposals about the scheme within 14 days

  Appointments and re-appointments to public bodies from 1 November 1992 to 31 January 1993

  Name

  Public body name

  Category

  Position

  Date of appointment

  Date of expiry

  Mr. P. H. McWilliams

  Industrial Development Board

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Sir K. P. Bloomfield

  NI Higher Education Council

  A

  Chairman

  1 January 1993

  Indeterminate

  Dr. M. N. Hayes

  Community Relations Council NI

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Mr. P. A. Duffy

  International Fund for Ireland

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Mr. J. E. Craig

  International Fund for Ireland

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Mr. J. L. McCrum

  International Fund for Ireland

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Mr. P. Kenny

  International Fund for Ireland

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Mr. W. McCarter

  International Fund for Ireland

  A

  Chairman

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Mr. G. Barr

  Community Relations Council NI

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Mr. D. McFerran

  Community Relations Council NI

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Mr. B. A. Slowey

  International Fund for Ireland

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Ms. C. Murphy

  International Fund for Ireland

  A

  Member

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1995

  Mr. N. W. Shaw

  Health and Social Services Trusts—appointment of lay helpers and chairmen

  A

  Chairman

  23 November 1992

  22 November 1996

  Mrs. B. M. McLaughlin

  Health and Social Services Trusts—appointment of lay helpers and chairmen

  A

  Chairman designate

  23 November 1992

  31 August 1993

  Mr. G. Burnison

  Health and Social Services Trusts—appointment of lay helpers and chairmen

  A

  Chairman designate

  23 November 1992

  31 August 1993

  Sir D. Faulkner

  Health and Social Services Trusts—appointment of lay helpers and chairmen

  A

  Chairman

  23 November 1992

  22 November 1996

  Mr. I. Oswald

  Health and Social Services Trusts—appointment of lay helpers and chairmen

  A

  Chairman

  23 November 1992

  22 November 1996

  Mr. J. Shields

  Health and Social Services Trusts—appointment of lay helpers and chairmen

  A

  Chairman designate

  23 November 1992

  31 August 1993

  Mrs. G. A. Shaw

  Health and Social Services Trusts—appointment of lay helpers and chairmen

  A

  Chairman designate

  23 November 1992

  31 August 1993

  Mr. G. H. Moore

  Health and Social Services Trusts—appointment of lay helpers and chairmen

  A

  Chairman

  23 November 1992

  22 November 1996

  Mrs. G. M. Loughran

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  A

  Member (non-executive)

  21 December 1992

  31 March 1995

  Mrs. J. I. Ferguson

  Eastern Health and Social Seevices Board

  A

  Member (non-executive)

  21 December 1992

  31 March 1995

  Mrs. P. Farren

  NI Transport Holding Company

  A

  Member

  1 November 1992

  31 October 1995

  Mr. I. Doherty

  NI Transport Holding Company

  A

  Member

  1 November 1992

  31 October 1995

  Mr. S. McDowell

  NI Housing Executive

  A

  Member

  5 November 1992

  4 November 1995

  Mrs. E. Waterson

  NI Housing Executive

  A

  Member

  5 November 1992

  4 November 1995

  Mrs. M. A. F. Cook

  NI Housing Executive

  A

  Member

  5 November 1992

  4 November 1995

  Mr. J. Hood

  NI Housing Executive

  A

  Member

  5 November 1992

  4 November 1995

  Mr. R. S. McCulloch

  NI Transport Holding Company

  A

  Member

  10 November 1992

  30 June 1993

  278
  of publication. I understand that the CEO wrote to the political parties in Northern Ireland in November 1992 to inform them of the impending review and of the scheduled publication of a new draft scheme.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 2 November 1992,Official Report, columns 44–48; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. Mates
  The following are details of public appointments made by my right hon. and learned Friend during the period 1 November 1992 to 31 January 1993.

  In making public appointments, the prime consideration is the appointee's ability or potential to contribute to the work of the particular body to which he or she is appointed. In Northern Ireland other major factors taken into account are community background and gender.
  279

  Name

  Public body name

  Category

  Position

  Date of appointment

  Date of expiry

  Miss G. M. M. Keegan

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  A

  Member

  7 December 1992

  6 December 1994

  Mr. D. Hewitt

  Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures

  A

  Independent Assessor

  15 December 1992

  14 December 1995

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cash and running cost limits for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland departmental service 1992–93.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, it is proposed that the cash limit for class XVII, vote 1 (the Northern Ireland Office) will be increased by £45,832,000 from £844,423,000 to £890,255,000. This is principally to meet additional expenditure on compensation and police costs. The additional provision sought will be mainly met from a transfer within the Northern Ireland block and the balance charged to the reserve. It will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The cash limit for most Northern Ireland departmental services will be increased by £20,621,000 from £3,393,100,000 to £3,413,721,000. This increase reflects the take-up of entitlement to end-year flexibility on capital and departmental running costs and the housing package announced by the Chancellor on 12 November 1992. It will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The combined running cost limit for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments will be increased by £4,165,000 from £712,316,000 to

  Table 1 Drug Seizures 1988–92

  Year

  Cannabis

  Cocaine

  Heroin

  LSD

  Amphetamines

  1988

  12.75 kilos

  2.51 gms

  3.65 gms

  917 doses

  466.26 gms

  1989

  21.71 kilos

  52.4 gms

  25.35 gms 1052 MST tablets

  485 doses 17.80 gms

  658.£65 gms

  1990

  37.6 kilos

  —

  2757 MST tablets

  573 doses

  95.2 gms

  1991

  37.5 kilos

  88 gms

  250 doses Dipipanone

  ½ kilo Psilocin

  625 gms

  1.5 kilos herbal

  1 gm Morphine

  800 doses 2,711 MDMA 114 gms

  25 tablets

  1992

  15.75 kilos

  77 gms

  9 gms 51 MST tablets

  9,201 doses 4,408 MDMA

  5,732 gms

  MST = Morphine Sulphate

  MDMA = Ecstasy

  Table 2 Convictions for drug offences 1988–92

  Offence

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Producing controlled drug

  3

  4

  1

  3

  4

  Importing controlled drug

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Supplying controlled drug

  12

  14

  5

  3

  10

  Possessing controlled drug

  97

  105

  98

  140

  242

  Possessing controlled drug with intent to supply

  10

  6

  6

  6

  14

  Permitting premises to be used for use of drugs

  4

  2

  1

  1

  2

  280
  £716,481,000. This reflects the take up of £2,471,000 of the end year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992, at columns 697–702, a net transfer of £1,684,000 from the Department of Social Security, mainly in respect of child support costs, and a transfer of £10,000 from the Property Services Agency relating to maintenance work. Of the revised running cost provision £171,362,000 is for the Northern Ireland Office and £545,119,000 for Northern Ireland Departments.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the evidence of trends in the level of drug abuse in Northern Ireland during the past five years; and if he will give details of(a) drugs, by type, seized and their street value and (b) the number of convictions by category.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The quantities and types of drugs seized during the period specified are set out in table 1 which also indicates the trends in drug abuse during the period. Table 2 lists the related convictions over the same time scale.

  It is not possible accurately to assess the street value of the drugs seized as the value varies according to availability, quality and demand.
  281

  Offence

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Obstructing powers of search for drugs

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Attempting producing controlled drugs

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Attempted possessing controlled drug

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Conspiracy possessing controlled drug

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Permitting possessing controlled drug

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  132

  133

  113

  153

  274

  RUC
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC officers, by rank, are operating, full-time, in(a) the anti-drugs unit, (b) the complaints and discipline branch and (c) the anti-racketeering unit.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The current number of RUC officers, by rank, in the drugs squad and the complaints and discipline branch is as follows:

  number

  Drugs squad

  Chief Inspector

  1

  Inspector

  1

  Sergeant

  4

  Constable

  28

  Complaints and discipline branch

  Assistant Chief Constable

  1

  Chief Superintendent

  2

  Superintendent

  11

  Chief Inspector

  25

  Inspector

  11

  Sergeant

  10

  Constable

  10

  Given the particular operational circumstances under which the anti-racketeering unit works, it is not in the public interest to disclose information as to its strength.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Safer Cities Programme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the evaluation of the safer cities programme by the Home Office research and statistics department, as it relates to crime rates and the fear of crime, to be completed and published.

  Mr. Jack
  Evaluation of the safer cities programme is being carried out in two stages: the first uses results from surveys and the second from recorded crime figures obtained from police forces. Surveys have taken the form of before and after studies and are being used to measure any change in levels of victimisation and fear of crime over the period 1990–92. This is intended to provide a snapshot picture of the impact of safer cities action in 11 cities, and is likely to be completed by the autumn of 1993. Police recorded crime figures will be used to look for changes in crime across time. Results from this second stage of the 282
  evaluation should be available a little later in the year, soon after which it is expected that publication of findings will begin.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safer cities projects he plans to have operating in the financial year 1994–95; and what criteria he will use to select locations for new projects.

  Mr. Jack
  There are a number of considerations which will affect the pace at which phase 2 safer cities are set up and it is too early to predict the number which will be operating in the financial year 1994–95. We are considering the criteria for the selection of new locations, but among the factors likely to be taken into account will be local crime rates and the readiness of local agencies to work with the programme. I will be looking carefully at projects coming from current urban priority areas which have not yet benefited from safer cities.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason it was decided not to award Stoke on Trent safer city status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  When the safer cities programme was launched in March 1988, the 20 project locations were selected from urban programme areas with high crime rates which were aggravated by other social problems, and where other Departments' inner cities programmes were targeted. As Stoke on Trent was not an urban programme area, it was not eligible for inclusion. Plans for the second phase of the safer cities programme are now being drawn up and I have previously undertaken to let the hon. Member have full details as soon as they are available. I made a statement on 7 January which set out the Government's policy on crime prevention, including the future of the safer cities programme. A copy of this statement has been placed in the library.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money each of the safer city projects in the east midlands will receive from his Department in the 1993–94 financial year.

  Mr. Jack
  There are three safer cities projects in the east midlands, in Derby, Leicester and Nottingham. The projects in Derby and Leicester were set up in the autumn of 1991 and it is intended to maintain their grant allocation at £250,000 in 1993–94 to enable them to support local crime prevention activities. The Nottingham project started in April 1989 and Home Office funding is due to end in March 1994; its grant allocation has been set at £100,000 in 1993–94. Nottingham and the other 15 projects where Home Office funding is due to finish next year will
  283
  also have access to additional grant money from a central pool of £500,000 to assist the development of continuing structures for multi-agency crime prevention work.

  In addition to the sums stated, the Home Office also pays the salaries of the staff and the other running costs of each safer cities project.

  The ending of Home Office funding in 16 of the longer established safer cities projects will enable work to be started on a new phase of safer cities in other locations.

  HMP, Manchester
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the original and (b) the revised closing date for tenders in respect of the market testing exercise at Her Majesty's prison Manchester.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The original closing date was 18 January. No new date has yet been set.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional costs will be incurred in respect of the market testing exercise at Her Majesty's prison Manchester as a result of the effect of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is not possible to identify separately any additional costs that might be caused by the application of the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the market testing of HMP Manchester.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional information has been sent to tenderers for Her Majesty's Prison Manchester since 1 January; and what effect it will have on the tendering process.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The following information has been sent to all tenderers since 1 January:

  On 4 January information about prisoner numbers received and discharged from Her Majesty's Prison Manchester over a three-month period;

  On 6 January a note clarifying the supply of UHF and VHF equipment at the prison;

  On 6 January a note advising that the deadline for the return of bids would be extended;

  On 18 January information on the supply of X-ray machines, security portals and certain furnishings and fittings in the administration suite;

  On 2 February a note on the current number of prisoners in police cells;

  In addition, on 8 January, the Manchester bid team was sent a further copy of schedule 4, appendix 7, to the tender documents.

  This information was provided to assist tenderers in the preparation of their bids and to inform them that the deadline for receiving bids would be extended.

  Departmental Warehousing and Distributing
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the contracting out of the warehousing and distributing function of the supply and transport branch of his Department;
  284
  (2) how many staff employed in the warehousing and distributing function of the supply and transport branch of his Department have been issued with redundancy notices; and if he plans to withdraw these notices.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The prison service warehousing and distribution activities were market tested in 1991. Competitive bids were received from four private sector companies and there was an in-house bid. In July 1992 the contract was awarded to a private contractor subject to consultation with the trade unions and negotiation of a satisfactory contract.

  All of the 141 staff employed in the warehousing and distribution function planned for contracting out were issued with redundancy notices in September 1992. There are currently no plans to withdraw these notices.

  At the market testing stage it was not thought that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) had implications for this market testing exercise, but advice received subsequently is that the regulations would apply. The implications of this advice are now being considered.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received recently about the number of police officers in the Plumstead and Greenwich divisions of the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's 1993 corporate strategy.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am placing copies of the Metropolitan Police Corporate Strategy, 1993–94 to 1997–98, which I fully endorse, in the Library of the House today. I am also sending copies to all right hon. and hon. Members whose consituencies fall wholly or partly within the Metropolitan police district.

  I am inviting London Members to discuss it with me.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the proposed policing levels for each of the Metropolitan police divisions for 1993; and what were the comparable figures for 1991 and 1992, indicating the percentage change.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not available in the format requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Market Testing
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of redundancy payments to persons employed in the prison department supply and transport branch as a result of the recent market testing exercise.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cost of redundancy payments for all of the staff employed in the prison department warehousing and distribution function is estimated at £850,000.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the consultancy
  285
  study undertaken by Deloitte Haskins and Sells in 1989 into the warehousing and distribution service in his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The details of costs of individual contracts between Government and contractors are regarded as commercial-in-confidence.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the full cost to date of the market testing exercise in respect of supply and transport at his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Those involved in this market testing exercise have carried out the work required as part of their normal job functions. Detailed records of the amount of time spent by individuals on this particular aspect of their jobs have not been recorded and there would be a disproportionate cost involved in obtaining these details.

  False Number Plates
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded offences involving the use of false number plates in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available.

  Cash Limits
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1992–93 cash limits within his responsibilities and to his Department's running costs limit.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on class IX, vote 2, prisons, England and Wales, will be increased by £113,500,000 from £1,363,448,000 to £1,476,948,000.

  The additional provision is necessary because of the need to pay for the cost of keeping prisoners in police cells. Extra provision is also necessary to meet the construction costs of new prisons due mainly to claims from contractors. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The cash limit on class IX, vote 3, Home Office administration, immigration and police support services, England and Wales, will be reduced by £12,000,000 from £1,242,192,000 to £1,230,192,000 to reflect a transfer of resources to class IX, vote 1 for the purpose of criminal injuries compensation payments and an increase in the amount of current grant payable for probation and bail hostels.

  The Home Office running cost limit will be reduced by £2,132,000 from £1,449,076,000 to £1,446,944,000 to reflect lower than expected pay settlements in the prison service.

  Prisoners (Razors)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in whi ch prisons male prisoners have to share razors.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prisoners are not expected to share razors. The recommended scale allows for three razors per 286
  prisoner every two weeks. Where this is insufficient, supplies of additional razors can be obtained from a direct call-off contract available to prisons.

  Radiation Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made in his Department to implement the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992 place duties on employers and self-employed persons who conduct an undertaking from which a radiation emergency is reasonably foreseeable, and on first-tier local authorities. They place no duties on the Home Office.

  Crime (London)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the metropolitan police commissioner to discuss action against crime in London.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has already discussed with the new commissioner his approach to his responsibilities, including this one, and will meet him frequently on a range of issues over the coming months.

  Elections (Mechanisation)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce electronic systems for counting ballot papers at election counts.

  Mr. Maclennam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the introduction of a mechanised voting system for public elections on a trial basis at specified locations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have set up a working group of local authority representatives and Home Office officials as part of our post-election review to look at the implications of introducing procedures for automated vote counting. We shall consider the working group's recommendations once it has reported its findings. We have no plans to introduce an automated voting system.

  Relate
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the funding in real terms for Relate in each year from 1987–88 to 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Home Office grant-in-aid to Relate for each year from 1987–88 to 1993–94 is as follows in actual terms and real terms, using 1991–92 as the base year.

  Actual expenditure £

  Real terms expenditure £

  1987–88

  912,870

  1,204,902

  1988–89

  935,910

  1,151,478

  1989–90

  958,890

  1,106,408

  1990–91

  1,006,840

  1,076,408

  1991–92

  1,107,500

  1,107,500

  287

  Actual expenditure £

  Real terms expenditure £

  1992–93

  1,511,400

  1,449,784

  1993–94

  1,530,500

  1,428,811

  In real terms, there has been an increase of 18.6 per cent. in the grant during the period in question; the actual increase is 67.7 per cent.

  Car Crime
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to set up a national squad to combat the problem of car crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to create a national squad to deal with this particular type of crime.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 9 November 1992,Official Report, columns 636–66, if he will list in descending order for each police force in England and Wales the percentage changes in notifiable offences since 1979 together with the total resident population of each force area in 1981 and 1991, the number of police officers in 1981 and 1991 and the percentage clear-up rate in 1979 and 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  The available statistics are provided in the tables. Figures for percentage clear-up rate are not yet available for 1992. Population figures are a matter for the Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment.

  Police force strength England and Wales

  Police strength (Actual)

  Police force area

  1981

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  3,014

  3,072

  Bedfordshire

  983

  1,090

  Cambridgeshire

  1,120

  1,239

  Cheshire

  1,850

  1,867

  Cleveland

  1,475

  1,477

  Cumbria

  1,113

  1,183

  Derbyshire

  1,779

  1,706

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,694

  2,876

  Dorset

  1,162

  1,280

  Durham

  1,344

  1,378

  Essex

  2,612

  2,878

  Gloucestershire

  1,126

  1,178

  Greater Manchester

  6,928

  6,975

  Hampshire

  3,048

  3,177

  Hertfordshire

  1,568

  1,679

  Humberside

  1,955

  2,016

  Kent

  2,868

  3,039

  Lancashire

  3,153

  3,205

  Leicestershire

  1,728

  1,808

  Lincolnshire

  1,182

  1,198

  London, City of

  863

  809

  Merseyside

  4,647

  4,605

  Metropolitan Police District

  25,075

  28,126

  Norfolk

  1,263

  1,419

  Northamptonshire

  1,003

  1,156

  288

  Police strength (Actual)

  Police force area

  1981

  1991

  Northumbria

  3,331

  3,460

  North Yorkshire

  1,353

  1,382

  Nottinghamshire

  2,259

  2,334

  South Yorkshire

  2,874

  2,989

  Staffordshire

  2,095

  2,185

  Suffolk

  1,114

  1,203

  Surrey

  1,593

  1,681

  Sussex

  2,824

  2,969

  Thames Valley

  3,091

  3,722

  Warwickshire

  925

  1,005

  West Mercia

  1,933

  2,028

  West Midlands

  6,689

  6,893

  West Yorkshire

  5,147

  5,143

  Wiltshire

  1,042

  1,212

  Dyfed-Powys

  925

  944

  Gwent

  963

  995

  North Wales

  1,288

  1,343

  South Wales

  3,082

  3,142

  Total

  118,081

  125,066

  Percentage change in notifiable offences and percentage of offences cleared up England and Wales

  Percentage cleared up1

  Police force area

  Percentage change 1991 over 19791

  1979

  1991

  Gloucestershire

  260

  51

  35

  Avon and Somerset

  212

  43

  24

  Leicestershire

  207

  54

  29

  Warwickshire

  205

  46

  24

  Norfolk

  200

  47

  37

  Lincolnshire

  169

  60

  46

  Northamptonshire

  168

  48

  31

  Kent

  163

  50

  23

  Humberside

  161

  45

  32

  Devon and Cornwall

  159

  46

  29

  Thames Valley

  158

  45

  22

  North Yorkshire

  146

  51

  36

  Cambridgeshire

  145

  47

  36

  West Yorkshire

  144

  37

  28

  Durham

  143

  52

  30

  Sussex

  141

  53

  23

  South Wales

  138

  46

  29

  Cumbria

  135

  56

  40

  Staffordshire

  136

  51

  37

  Dyfed-Powys

  132

  62

  50

  Dorset

  129

  46

  41

  West Mercia

  129

  49

  35

  Cleveland

  127

  51

  33

  Hampshire

  126

  46

  28

  South Yorkshire

  125

  51

  36

  Northumbria

  123

  53

  35

  Greater Manchester

  120

  45

  36

  Cheshire

  119

  58

  41

  Bedfordshire

  114

  48

  19

  Nottinghamshire

  109

  51

  27

  Suffolk

  108

  57

  37

  Essex

  108

  42

  32

  Derbyshire

  104

  50

  28

  Lancashire

  105

  56

  40

  Wiltshire

  103

  42

  40

  West Midlands

  100

  37

  31

  289

  Percentage cleared up1

  Police force area

  Percentage change 1991 over 19791

  1979

  1991

  Gwent

  98

  60

  47

  Surrey

  94

  47

  23

  North Wales

  91

  59

  36

  Metropolitan Police District

  69

  21

  17

  Hertfordshire

  53

  54

  33

  Merseyside

  37

  42

  45

  London, City of

  13

  21

  20

  Total

  114

  41

  29

  1 Excluding offences of Criminal Damage value £20 and under.

  Notifiable offences1 cleared up by the police by method of clear up England and Wales 1991

  Police force area

  Charged or summonsed

  Caution

  Taken into consideration (previously recorded)

  Taken into consideration (not previously recorded)

  Interview of convicted prisoner

  Other

  Total cleared up

  Clear up rate

  Number

  Percentage of total cleared up

  Number

  Percentage of total cleared up

  Number

  Percentage of total cleared up

  Number

  Percentage of total cleared up

  Number

  Percentage of total cleared up

  Number

  Percentage of total cleared up

  Number of notifiable offences

  Percentage of total notifiable offences cleared up

  Avon and Somerset

  18,843

  53

  3,328

  9

  2,283

  6

  3,151

  9

  5,234

  15

  2,736

  8

  35,575

  24

  Bedfordshire

  6,655

  61

  1,564

  14

  980

  9

  749

  7

  176

  2

  824

  8

  10,948

  19

  Cambridgeshire

  7,386

  36

  2,611

  13

  2,806

  14

  2,989

  15

  2,477

  12

  2,319

  11

  20,588

  36

  Cheshire

  13,699

  54

  2,710

  11

  2,643

  10

  1,084

  4

  4,230

  17

  806

  3

  25,172

  41

  Cleveland

  8,654

  35

  3,488

  14

  7,597

  31

  567

  2

  4,139

  17

  372

  1

  24,817

  33

  Cumbria

  7,767

  45

  2,771

  16

  1,492

  9

  1,646

  10

  2,335

  14

  1,184

  7

  17,195

  40

  Derbyshire

  9,256

  46

  3,229

  16

  2,456

  12

  1,549

  8

  1,380

  7

  2,196

  11

  20,066

  28

  Devon and Cornwall

  18,134

  58

  4,081

  13

  2,568

  8

  2,267

  7

  2,086

  7

  1,883

  6

  31,019

  29

  Dorset

  9,586

  45

  1,624

  8

  2,532

  12

  433

  2

  5,977

  28

  939

  4

  21,091

  41

  Durham

  11,896

  65

  1,121

  6

  946

  5

  1,268

  7

  1,937

  11

  1,160

  6

  18,328

  30

  Essex

  13,526

  40

  3,992

  12

  6,075

  18

  5,373

  16

  1,929

  6

  2,623

  8

  33,518

  32

  Gloucestershire

  6,345

  32

  2,322

  12

  1,461

  7

  2,021

  10

  6,330

  32

  1,096

  6

  19,575

  35

  Greater Manchester

  40,699

  32

  10,867

  9

  25,262

  20

  7,460

  6

  40,629

  32

  1,547

  1

  126,464

  36

  Hampshire

  19,565

  49

  7,194

  18

  4,805

  12

  2,244

  6

  4,044

  10

  1,889

  5

  39,741

  28

  Hertfordshire

  9,121

  50

  2,304

  13

  2,932

  16

  2,035

  11

  527

  3

  1,320

  7

  18,239

  33

  Humberside

  15,527

  42

  4,882

  13

  5,699

  16

  2,019

  6

  4,676

  13

  3,800

  10

  36,648

  32

  Kent

  15,128

  49

  5,847

  19

  2,539

  8

  3,644

  12

  583

  2

  2,847

  9

  30,608

  23

  Lancashire

  17,903

  42

  3,424

  8

  6,396

  15

  2,702

  6

  9,465

  22

  2,673

  6

  42,563

  40

  Leicestershire

  9,576

  37

  4,442

  17

  4,572

  18

  2,581

  10

  2,889

  11

  1,514

  6

  25,574

  29

  Lincolnshire

  8,786

  44

  2,624

  13

  3,180

  16

  1,142

  6

  2,385

  12

  2,035

  10

  20,152

  46

  London, City of

  1,022

  67

  209

  14

  133

  9

  53

  3

  35

  2

  74

  5

  1,526

  20

  Merseyside

  22,750

  36

  4,582

  7

  7,332

  11

  2,440

  4

  25,589

  40

  1,111

  2

  63,804

  45

  Metropolitan Police

  92,669

  62

  14,035

  9

  10,388

  7

  0

  0

  1,679

  1

  30,245

  20

  149,016

  17

  Norfolk

  10,974

  47

  2,045

  9

  2,626

  11

  2,476

  11

  4,612

  20

  548

  2

  23,281

  37

  Northamptonshire

  7,212

  41

  1,694

  10

  2,589

  15

  543

  3

  3,458

  19

  2,286

  13

  17,782

  31

  Northumbria

  21,318

  29

  6,870

  9

  11,988

  16

  2,851

  4

  18,790

  25

  11,979

  16

  73,796

  35

  North Yorkshire

  8,298

  46

  2,007

  11

  1,745

  10

  2,779

  15

  1,972

  11

  1,214

  7

  18,015

  36

  Nottinghamshire

  21,871

  57

  6,615

  17

  4,794

  12

  4,370

  11

  745

  2

  300

  1

  38,695

  27

  South Yorkshire

  21,634

  51

  4,214

  10

  1,568

  4

  1,036

  2

  10,428

  24

  3,702

  9

  42,582

  36

  Staffordshire

  14,259

  45

  3,669

  12

  3,612

  11

  1,385

  4

  7,242

  23

  1,367

  4

  31,534

  37

  Suffolk

  10,377

  71

  2,753

  19

  89

  1

  43

  0

  188

  1

  1,176

  8

  14,626

  37

  Surrey

  5,946

  53

  2,011

  18

  927

  8

  928

  8

  411

  4

  1,026

  9

  11,249

  23

  Sussex

  13,861

  55

  3,377

  13

  1,735

  7

  3,672

  15

  268

  1

  2,164

  9

  25,077

  23

  Thames Valleky

  19,623

  49

  6,089

  15

  5,770

  14

  4,713

  12

  1,553

  4

  2,537

  6

  40,285

  22

  Warwickshire

  4,791

  50

  1,206

  13

  1,173

  12

  866

  9

  1,230

  13

  375

  4

  9,641

  24

  West Mercia

  11,776

  47

  3,555

  14

  2,684

  11

  717

  3

  4,419

  18

  2,081

  8

  25,232

  35

  West Midlands

  37,113

  41

  9,433

  10

  12,056

  13

  2,591

  3

  23,037

  25

  6,114

  7

  90,344

  31

  West Yorkshire

  35,269

  44

  8,864

  11

  11,461

  14

  3,131

  4

  15,280

  19

  5,658

  7

  79,663

  28

  Wiltshire

  8,798

  57

  2,300

  15

  1,846

  12

  264

  2

  530

  3

  1,722

  11

  15,460

  40

  Dyfed-Powys

  6,619

  54

  1,077

  9

  175

  1

  370

  3

  2,424

  20

  1,596

  13

  12,261

  50

  Gwent

  12,843

  73

  1,379

  8

  555

  3

  1,166

  7

  1,412

  8

  132

  1

  17,487

  47

  North Wales

  8,735

  56

  1,679

  11

  1,985

  13

  638

  4

  1,676

  11

  810

  5

  15,523

  36

  South Wales

  24,772

  55

  2,760

  6

  1,474

  3

  285

  1

  15,148

  34

  292

  1

  44,731

  29

  England and Wales

  690,627

  47

  166,848

  11

  177,929

  12

  84,261

  6

  245,554

  17

  114,272

  8

  1,479,491

  29

  1 Excluding offences of Criminal Damage value £20 and under.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991(a) the number of arrests, (b) the number of people charged, (c) the number

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of offences cleared up and the percentage of the total clear-up rate in each police force in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991 in terms of(a) those charged and found guilty, (b) those charged and summoned, (c) those taken into consideration where the offence had previously been reported, (d) those taken into consideration where the crime had not previously been reported, (e) as a result of admissions to further offences from persons already in prison and (f) by no futher action.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information for 1991 is given in the table. Corresponding figures for 1981 are not available.

  of people who appeared in court, (d) the number of people found guilty and (e) the figure for those found guilty as a percentage of (a), (b) and (c).

  Mr. Jack
  Information concerning arrests (for all offences), prosecutions and convictions (for indictable offences) 1981 and 1991 (which is provisional) is given in the table. Data on the number of people charged is not collected centrally.
  291

  Table A Number of arrests, prosecutions at magistrates' courts and total found guilty at all courts by police force area England and Wales 1981

  Police force area

  Arrests1 Number

  Prosecutions at magistrates' courts2

  Total found guilty at courts2

  Percentage found guilty to arrests Per cent.

  Percentage found guilty to prosecutions Per cent.

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  35,891

  12,758

  10,986

  31

  86

  Bedfordshire

  15,831

  5,315

  4,481

  28

  84

  Cambridgeshire

  17,757

  6,032

  5,428

  31

  90

  Cheshire

  18,511

  8,816

  8,065

  44

  91

  Cleveland

  24,565

  8,267

  7,715

  31

  93

  Cumbria

  12,434

  4,526

  4,095

  33

  90

  Derbyshire

  17,850

  7,550

  6,708

  38

  89

  Devon and Cornwall

  21,499

  9,878

  9,173

  43

  93

  Dorset

  13,068

  5,320

  4,719

  36

  89

  Durham

  16,616

  6,206

  5,710

  34

  92

  Essex

  31,138

  9,935

  8,931

  29

  90

  Gloucestershire

  11,758

  4,039

  3,829

  33

  95

  Greater Manchester

  102,118

  37,274

  33,966

  33

  91

  Hampshire

  42,551

  14,643

  13,078

  31

  89

  Hertfordshire

  19,092

  6,783

  6,150

  32

  91

  Humberside

  30,662

  10,633

  9,872

  32

  93

  Kent

  37,003

  10,492

  9,725

  26

  93

  Lancashire

  39,844

  15,561

  14,264

  36

  92

  Leicestershire

  21,202

  7,753

  7,100

  33

  92

  Lincolnshire

  13,203

  4,443

  4,031

  31

  91

  London, City of

  3,390

  1,139

  947

  28

  83

  Merseyside

  57,139

  22,183

  17,792

  31

  80

  Metropolitan police district

  340,809

  97,898

  85,262

  25

  87

  Norfolk

  10,155

  5,135

  4,764

  47

  93

  Northamptonshire

  15,151

  5,501

  4,821

  32

  88

  Northumbria

  62,121

  16,598

  14,659

  24

  88

  North Yorkshire

  11,829

  5,384

  4,645

  39

  86

  Nottinghamshire

  32,625

  11,483

  10,876

  33

  95

  South Yorkshire

  44,550

  13,879

  12,524

  28

  90

  Staffordshire

  31,833

  9,453

  8,168

  26

  86

  Suffolk

  12,452

  4,587

  3,735

  30

  81

  Surrey

  17,536

  4,388

  4,115

  23

  94

  Sussex

  35,294

  10,194

  9,615

  27

  94

  Thames Valley

  42,076

  13,411

  12,416

  30

  93

  Warwickshire

  7,050

  3,146

  2,784

  39

  88

  West Mercia

  22,692

  7,742

  7,268

  32

  94

  West Midlands

  87,376

  30,777

  26,820

  31

  87

  West Yorkshire

  56,702

  26,570

  23,177

  41

  87

  Wiltshire

  8,857

  4,057

  3,773

  43

  93

  England

  1,442,230

  489,749

  436,187

  30

  89

  Dyfed-Powys

  8,605

  2,942

  2,605

  30

  89

  Gwent

  15,955

  5,912

  5,223

  33

  88

  North Wales

  11,003

  5,664

  5,204

  47

  92

  South Wales

  35,795

  16,910

  14,162

  40

  84

  Wales

  71,358

  31,428

  27,194

  38

  87

  England and Wales

  1,513,588

  521,177

  463,381

  31

  89

  1 All offences.

  2 Indictable offences.

  Table B Number of arrests, prosecutions at magistrates' courts and total found guilty at all courts by police force area

  England and Wales 19911

  Number and percentage

  Police force area

  Arrests2

  Prosecutions at magistrates' courts3

  Total found guilty at all courts3

  Percentage found guilty to arrests

  Percentage found guilty to prosecutions

  Avon and Somerset

  39,216

  11,955

  7,526

  19

  63

  Bedfordshire

  17,543

  4,467

  2,716

  15

  61

  Cambridgeshire

  17,699

  5,403

  3,664

  21

  68

  Cheshire

  29,684

  8,101

  5,937

  20

  73

  Cleveland

  28,061

  6,739

  4,336

  15

  64

  Cumbria

  21,275

  5,204

  3,939

  19

  76

  Derbyshire

  23,708

  7,828

  5,275

  22

  67

  Devon and Cornwall

  34,024

  10,032

  7,332

  22

  73

  Dorset

  18,382

  5,357

  3,637

  20

  68

  Durham

  25,125

  5,684

  3,487

  14

  61

  Essex

  40,100

  12,580

  7,835

  20

  62

  292 293

  Police force area

  Arrests2

  Prosecutions at magistrates' courts3

  Total found guilty at all courts3

  Percentage found guilty to arrests

  Percentage found guilty to prosecutions

  Gloucestershire

  17,020

  4,446

  2,990

  18

  67

  Greater Manchester

  116,916

  29,320

  22,832

  20

  78

  Hampshire

  62,330

  13,788

  9,544

  15

  69

  Hertfordshire

  23,191

  6,288

  4,039

  17

  64

  Humberside

  35,847

  7,941

  6,057

  17

  76

  Kent

  47,992

  7,176

  6,262

  13

  87

  Lancashire

  62,104

  14,005

  10,544

  17

  75

  Leicestershire

  26,417

  7,442

  5,041

  19

  68

  Lincolnshire

  22,680

  5,044

  3,466

  15

  69

  London, City of

  4,688

  1,120

  756

  16

  68

  Merseyside

  72,930

  23,311

  14,955

  21

  64

  Metropolitan Police District4

  113,570

  69,148

  50,684

  45

  73

  Norfolk

  20,898

  5,579

  4,577

  22

  82

  Northamptonshire

  19,353

  5,425

  3,488

  18

  64

  Northumbria

  68,847

  15,787

  10,266

  15

  65

  North Yorkshire

  20,936

  6,276

  4,324

  21

  69

  Nottinghamshire

  46,487

  14,974

  9,292

  20

  62

  South Yorkshire

  45,722

  13,405

  9,636

  21

  72

  Staffordshire

  39,142

  10,386

  6,794

  17

  65

  Suffolk

  15,796

  4,994

  3,627

  23

  73

  Surrey

  19,940

  5,141

  3,451

  17

  67

  Sussex

  39,247

  12,261

  8,559

  22

  70

  Thames Valley

  59,458

  14,148

  9,203

  15

  65

  Warwickshire

  14,138

  2,859

  2,218

  16

  78

  West Mercia

  32,048

  8,186

  6,080

  19

  74

  West Midlands

  131,062

  33,082

  21,624

  16

  65

  West Yorkshire

  85,867

  22,946

  15,987

  19

  70

  Wiltshire

  13,670

  4,618

  3,280

  24

  71

  England

  1,573,113

  452,446

  315,280

  20

  70

  Dyfed-Powys

  13,466

  4,177

  2,752

  20

  66

  Gwent

  17,796

  5,146

  3,372

  19

  66

  North Wales

  24,338

  5,541

  4,421

  18

  80

  South Wales

  57,143

  18,931

  12,510

  22

  66

  Wales

  112,743

  33,795

  23,055

  20

  68

  England and Wales

  1,685,856

  486,241

  338,335

  20

  70

  1 Provisional

  2 All offences

  3 Indictable offences

  4 Notifiable offences

  Fire Brigade (Marine Units)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which fire brigades in England and Wales undergo regular training for emergencies at sea; and in which towns their specialist marine units are based.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: In addition to the training all firefighters receive for fighting fires on ships, 22 brigades in England and Wales maintain regular specialist training. Eleven brigades have specialist marine units.

  Area

  Brigade maintaining training

  Location of marine units

  Northern England

  Tyne & Wear

  Newcastle and Sunderland

  Cleveland

  Middlebrough

  Lancashire

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  Humberside

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  Wales

  Dyfed

  Milford Haven

  South Glamorgan

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  Gwynedd

  —

  Eastern England

  Lincolnshire

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  Wisbech

  294

  Area

  Brigade maintaining training

  Location of marine units

  Suffolk

  Felixstowe, Ipswich

  Norfolk

  Great Yarmouth

  Essex

  South Woodham Ferrers

  London

  London

  South and South-West England

  Kent

  Strood, Whitstable, Sheppey

  East Sussex

  —

  Dorset

  —

  Devon

  Plymouth

  Cornwall

  —

  Gloucestershire

  inshore inflatable at Gloucester

  Bail Support Schemes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the location of all bail support schemes in operation in England and Wales; and if he will indicate for each(a) the magistrates court areas served, (b) the local authority, (c) police force area in which it falls and (d) the number of people dealt with in each of the last three years;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for each bail support scheme currently in operation (a) the number of

  295
  people aged over 21 years, (b) the number of people aged 18 to 21 years and (c) the number of people aged under 18 years who were involved in each of the last three years;

  (3) if he will publish a table showing for each bail support scheme currently in operation in England and Wales (a) the current total cost on a full year basis, (b) the total cost in each of the past three years and (c) the cost per head per week for each scheme in 1991 or for the latest available financial year.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 February 1993]: The Home Office probation supervision grant scheme, established in March 1992, makes available grants to voluntary organisations working in partnership with the probation service for a number of purposes, including bail support

  Bail support schemes in operation in England and Wales

  Name and location of scheme

  (i) Magistrates court area served

  Number (per year)1 involved by age

  Total cost on full year basis(£)1

  (ii) Local authority

  (i) under 18

  (iii) Police force area

  (ii) 18–21

  (iv) Number dealt with2

  (iii) over 21

  Bail Charter Scheme (North Wales)

  (i) Wrexham, Mold, Hawarden, Flint

  (i) 34

  73,412

  (ii) Clwyd

  (ii) 18

  (iii) North Wales police

  (iii) 23

  Surrey Youth Justice Team

  (i) All Petty Sessional areas in Surrey

  (i) 80

  97,422

  (ii) Surrey county council

  (ii) 0

  (iii) Surrey constabulary

  (iii) 0

  1 Estimates as shown on application form for Homwe Office funding.

  2 Information not yet available.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Cider Tax
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the yield from cider tax during the year 1992–93.

  Sir John Cope
  The yield from the excise duty on cider for the year ending 1992–93 is estimated at £80 million.

  Economy (Demand)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the level of total demand in the economy.

  Mr. Lamont
  Real domestic demand has been edging up since the second quarter of 1991. Both Treasury and the majority of outside forecasters expect it to pick up further in 1993.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make further changes in the system of regulation of financial services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend has asked the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to review how SIB carries out its regulatory responsibilities.296
  programmes for young adult defendants. Information about the scheme and how to apply for grants under it was sent in March 1992 to all probation services and the major voluntary organisations concerned with offenders. Bail support projects for juveniles are run by or in partnership with social service departments of local authorities. Such projects are also eligible for Home Office funding where there is a partnership with the probation service and the voluntary sector.

  So far 16 applications under the supervision grant scheme have been made. Of these, five have been approved and the remainder are under urgent consideration. The available information about the two projects already in operation is set out in the table.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue guidelines to Departments in respect of expenditure on the underwriting of compulsory competitive tendering contracts.

  Mr. Portillo
  No.

  Consumption and GDP
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the percentage changes in consumption and gross domestic product between 1979 and 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  GDP is estimated to have risen by 22¼ per cent. in real terms between 1979 and the first three quarters of 1992. Real consumers' expenditure is estimated to have risen by 37 per cent. over the same period.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation of the new single market VAT procedures introduced at the beginning of the year.

  Sir John Cope
  Early indications are that the new single market VAT procedures have been introduced with minimum disruption to trade. This reflects credit on the preparations made by Customs and by British businesses, often against tight deadlines.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation of the new single market VAT procedures introduced at the beginning of the year.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowland).

  Company Cars
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost in the last financial year of tax relief on company cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Capital allowances for company cars are estimated to have reduced corporation tax receipts by about £900 million in 1991–92. The hon. Member would not expect me to make a statement on taxation matters at this time of year.

  Retail Prices
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the annual increase in retail prices; and what was the equivalent figure two years ago.

  Mr. Lamont
  Latest figures show that the retail prices index rose 2.6 per cent. in the 12 months to December. The equivalent figure two years earlier was 9.3 per cent.

  Tax Evasion
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of revenue lost through tax evasion in the cash economy.

  Mr. Nelson
  That part of the economy known as the "underground" or "hidden economy" is, by its very nature, unseen and thus unmeasurable. Reliable estimates of its size are therefore not available.

  Business and Consumer Confidence
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the autumn statement on business and consumer confidence.

  Mr. Portillo
  The autumn statement was widely welcomed by business organisations. Recent survey evidence indicates that it has been followed by a marked improvement in both business and consumer confidence.

  Car Tax
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the decision to abolish car tax.

  Sir John Cope
  The abolition of car tax has been warmly welcomed by both the motor trade and the vast majority of retail customers, and the motor industry has received a valuable stimulus.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the abolition of car tax on Exchequer revenue.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The abolition of car tax, announced in the 1992 autumn statement, has an estimated revenue cost of £100 million in 1992–93 and £750 million in 1993–94, including the loss of consequential VAT receipts. However, the Chancellor announced his intention at that time to recoup the cost of abolishing car tax in 1993–94 through other taxes on motoring. This information is set out in the 1992 autumn statement.

  Tax System (Distortions)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress in eradicating distortions in the tax system.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's main objective in reforming taxes is to improve the performance of the economy and to see that people's choices are distorted as little as is reasonably possible by the tax system.

  Balance of Payments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of payments.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford).

  Growth (EC)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the prospects for growth in the economies of the European Community.

  Sir John Cope
  In the autumn statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast that average growth in the three main continental European economies in 1993 would be under 1 per cent. A more recent forecast by the European Commission points to growth in the Community as a whole of only ¾ per cent.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is for local authority capital receipts.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest estimate of capital receipts in Great Britain for the current financial year is published in table 5.10 of "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement" which was published on 29 January.

  Banking
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the banking sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor meets the Governor from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the level of interest rates.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have received a number of such representations.

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1992,Official Report, column 48, whether he has completed his consideration of a leakage prevention programme.
  299
  Sir John Cope
  As part of the HM Treasury domestic policy and strategy for environmental good housekeeping there is a commitment to cease to use wherever possible ozone-depleting substances. In addition to this, the Treasury is committed to a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned by the Department. Work has started on this operation which is due to be completed by 1 April 1993.

  European Community
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet European Community Finance Ministers to discuss proposals for generating economic growth.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend next intends to discuss measures to promote economic recovery with his European Community colleagues at the meeting of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers on 15 February.

  Inflation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many months over the last year the United Kingdom inflation rate has been below the EC average.

  Mr. Portillo
  The United Kingdom inflation rate, as measured by the annual change in the retail prices index, was lower than the EC average inflation rate in all of the 12 months up to December 1992.

  National Savings
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he is considering in the operation of National Savings Bank accounts.

  Mr. Nelson
  The terms and operation of National Savings Bank accounts are kept under review.

  Custom House, Greenock
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of the renovation of the Custom House, Greenock, occupied by Customs and Excise staff; which department met the cost; and how long the construction programme took from start to finish.

  Sir John Cope
  The total cost of renovation of the Custom House, Greenock, was £2.9 million and was jointly funded by PSA and Customs and Excise. The construction programme took 24 months from start to finish.

  European Investment Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with the European investment bank concerning the European investment fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend has not had any such consultations.

  VIP Tax Unit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to expand the workload of the VIP tax unit at Llanishen, Cardiff.
  300
  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no current plans to expand the workload of this unit.

  National Investment and Loans Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make to the running cost limit for the National Investment and Loans Office in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the running cost limit for class XVIII, vote 12 will be reduced by £28,000 from £1,214,000 to £1,186,000. This reduction reflects lower than expected expenditure on pay and other expenses.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make to the Treasury's cash and running costs limits in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 1 for 1992–93 will be increased by £800,000 from £93,691,000 to £94,491,000 to provide for redundancy and residual costs following the closure of the National Economic Development Office. Total winding-up costs are estimated at £2.5 million, part of which (£1.7 million) is being met from savings on the NEDO grant-in-aid and on Treasury gross running costs. The balance of £800,000 will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The gross running costs limit is being reduced by £1,532,000 from £80,891,000 to £79,359,000 following the transfer of CCTA and Chessington computer centre to the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service and Science; and the transfer of savings to fund part of the NEDO residual costs and capital expenditure.

  Registry of Friendly Societies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make to the cash and running costs limit of the Registry of Friendly Societies for 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 11 will be reduced by £2,124,000 from £5,685,000 to £3,561,000 and the Registry of Friendly Societies running costs limit will be reduced by £1,502,000 from £8,869,000 to £7,367,000.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), 19 January,Official Report, columns 215–17, regarding the refusal of community care grants and social fund loans if he will provide comparable information for each year from 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the
  301
  Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 3 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Social Fund applications refused on grounds of insufficient priority.
  Information for the year 1989–90 is not available by local office but you may wish to know that the number of loans and grants refused nationally on the grounds of insufficient priority in that year was 138,997 and 50,342 respectively.
  Details of loans and grants refused on grounds of insufficient priority for the year 1990–91 by former Department of Social Security local office are at Annex A. Details for the year 1991–92 are given by Benefits Agency District and are at Annex B.
  The figures should be viewed in the light of the increase in Social Fund applications; from 1989–90 to 1991–92 the number of applications to the discretionary part of the fund increased by 35%.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. A copy is also being placed in the Library.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent the services of civil service medical officers were made use of in clearing the recent backlog of applications for disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement on the role of civil service medical officers in this regard.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. David Hanson, dated 3 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security. You asked to what extent the services of Civil Service Medical Officers were made use of in clearing the recent backlog of applications for Disability Living Allowance (DLA); and on the role of Civil Service Medical Officers in this regard.
  When the backlog of DLA claims arose following the launch of the benefit a number of measures were taken which I described in my letter of 19 October 1992 to all MPs. In addition, as a temporary measure, the opinions of Civil Service Medical Officers were sought to clarify some of the comments on individual cases to enable adjudication officers to quickly reach a decision. This action was taken on approximately 56,000 claims. However, I must emphasise that the decision on entitlement to benefit is always made by the adjudication officer and at no time has this been altered.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. A copy is also being placed in the Library.

  Pensions
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to enable couples, where the woman is of pensionable age and the man is not, to claim a married couple's pension.
  302
  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to alter the basic structure of pension provision for married couples.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average number of years for which a woman currently works prior to reaching the state retirement age; and for how many years she would expect, on average, to receive that pension;

  (2) what is the average number of years for which a man currently works prior to reaching the state retirement age; and for how many years he would expect, on average, to receive that pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The average life expectancy for a woman aged 60 is 21.69 years and for a man aged 65 is 14.06 according to the Government Actuary's Department's interim life tables. Information regarding the average length of time for which men and women work prior to state retirement age is not currently available.

  Child Support Act
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations his Department has received concerning the need for research to monitor the effects of the Child Support Act 1991;

  (2) what plans his Department has to carry out or commission research on the working of the Child Support Act 1991 and its impact on single parents caring for children and on non-custodial parents.

  Mr. Burt
  We have consistently stressed the importance of monitoring and evaluating the effects of the Child Support Act 1991, as did several respondents to the consultation exercise. Such work will be built in to the Department's research programme. We envisage that this will involve both the careful analysis of management information on the activities of the Child Support Agency and the comissioning, if necessary, of research by external experts.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated first year costs inclusive of setting-up moneys of the newly-formed Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The current estimated first-year costs, inclusive of setting-up costs, are £262 million. These are broken down as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Total costs of setting up the agency

  146

  (b) Total costs of running the agency in 1993–94

  116

  One-parent Families
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide the latest estimate for the number of one-parent families in Great Britain.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest provisional estimate for 1991 of the number of one-parent families in Great Britain is 1.3 million. This is due to be published in March 1993 in "Population Trends No. 71."

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he proposes in the cash limit or running costs limit of his Department for 1992–93.
  303
  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the cash limit for class XIV vote 4 will be increased by £21,426,000 from £2,271,998,000 to £2,293,424,000. The revision takes account of an increase in agency payments to the Department of Employment (class VI vote 2) £31,000,000), a transfer to the Department of Health (class XIII vote 3) of £696,000, of which £646,000 is running costs, a transfer to the Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) (vote 3) of £227,000 (running costs) and a transfer from the Scottish Office (class XV vote 19) of £1,429,000 (running costs). The additional requirements are partially offset by an increase in receipts of £10,080,000 and the balance of £20,920,000 will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The running cost limit of the Department of Social Security will be reduced by £12,239,000 from £2,537,904,000 to £2,525,665,000. In addition to the running cost transfers included above there is also a net reduction of £12,795,000 to take account of a transfer from running costs to capital expenditure (£25,367,000) and a £12,572,000 shortfall on value added tax refunds.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will collect and publish data on family credit recipients in each of(a) the major industrial classifications and (b) by employer employing over 1,000 workers.

  Mr. Burt
  An analysis of family credit recipients, by the occupation of the main earner, is contained in table A1.05 of "Social Security Statistics 1991", a copy of which is in the Library. No analysis is kept of family credit recipients by employer and to do so would incur disproportionate cost.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each of the past five years, what was the number of residential courses undertaken by departmental or Benefits Agency staff based in West Yorkshire, the cost of such courses and the reason why it has been necessary for such courses to be undertaken on a residential basis.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Residential training is not undertaken as a matter of routine, but it maximises the number of training hours in the working day and generally enhances the learning environment.

SCOTLAND

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits for 1992–93 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates I intend to make changes to 10 voted cash limits and in addition the two non-voted cash blocks. These include increases in 304
  provision to reflect the increased resources for capital expenditure under the special measures announced as part of the autumn statement in November 1992.

  1. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 2, Agricultural services, agricultural grants and fisheries, Scotland will be decreased by £4,000,000 from £126,684,000 to £122,684,000.

  2. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 3: Training Programmes, Roads and Transport Services and Industrial Support, Scotland, will be increased by £17,522,000 from £713,689,000 to £731,211,000. An additional £8,500,000 is allocated to the Trunk Roads programme, £6,460,000 to Scottish Enterprise, £1,530,000 to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, £700,000 to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. and £332,000 to the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative.

  3. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 5: Housing and Environmental Services, Scotland, will be increased by £260,613,000 from £423,453,000 to £684,066,000. Of this £250,139,000 will be used to increase grant-in-aid provision to Scottish Homes to enable the premature repayment of National Loans Fund debt. There will be a transfer of £9,361,000 from SO/LA2 to enable Scottish Homes to continue to improve housing quality within Scotland and provide assistance to Housing Associations for the purpose of acquiring stock from local authorities and new towns. £1,109,000 of the cash limit increase will be allocated to Historic Scotland of which £1,009,000 relates to an increase in provision for Historic Building repair grants, £54,000 to reflect part take-up of entitlement to end-year flexibility for running costs as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992 (Official Report, columns 698–702) and £55,000 to reflect a transfer of functions from Class XV, Vote 19. There is also a small increase of £4,000 to meet an unanticipated shortfall in Appropriations-in-Aid from repayments of loans and grants by first-time buyers.

  4. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 12: Law, Order, Miscellaneous Health and Social Work Services, Scotland, wil be increased by £2,326,000 from £247,302,000 to £249,628,000. This includes an increased allocation to the Scottish Prison Service to bring forward a number of capital projects and take-up in full of £520,000 running costs and £803,000 End-Year Flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July (Official Report, Cols. 698–702).

  5. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 13: Education, Arts and Libraries, Scotland, will be increased by £400,000 from £262,615,000 to £263,015,000. The additional resources will assist special schools and Jordanhill school with buildings expenditure.

  6. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 16 Scottish Record Office will be increased by £258,000 from £3,871,000 to £4,129,000 for the take-up of end-year felxibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992 (Official Report, Cols. 698–702) and a transfer of £27,000 from Property Holdings.

  7. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 19, Scottish Office Administration will be decreased by £1,375,000 from £152,875,000 to £151,500,000.

  8. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 17, The Registrar General for Scotland will be decreased by £560,000 from £7,912,000 to £7,352,000. This reduction takes into account the take-up of capital End-Year Flexibility entitlements amounting to £640,000 as announced by the Chief Secretary on 15 July 1992 (Official Report, Cols. 698–702).

  9. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 20: Revenue and rate support grants, Scotland will be decreased by £431,000 from £3,506,200,000 to £3,505,769,000.

  10. The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 25: Hospital, Community Health, Family Health (Part) and Other Health Services, Scotland will be increased by £12,033,000 from £2,601,445,000 to £2,613,478,000, for increased capital expenditure and also in respect of the part of an NHS Trust's charges that reflects the

  305
  Trust's liability to remunerate its capital debt to the Consolidated Fund. In addition there will be transfers from this Vote of £6,408,000 to class XV Vote 15 (to take account of changes in the requirements for GP practice fundholders and the external financing limit for NHS trusts) and of £42,000 to class XV Vote 12; and a transfer to this Vote of £47,000 from class XIII, Vote 3.

  11. The non-voted cash limit SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expenditure by local authorities, is to be increased by £31,462,000 from £622,125,000 to £653,587,000. This increase reflects £20,850,000 of Special Measures (including Water, Transport, Education, Police and Social Work) and take-up in full of £10,612,000 capital End-Year Flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July (Official Report, Columns 698–702.

  12. The non-voted cash limit SO/LA2, which covers housing capital expenditure by local authorities and capital expenditure by New Towns, is to be increased by £23,704,000 from £267,981,000 to £291,685,000. This increase reflects allocation of £20.000,000 additional provision in the measures announced in November and take-up of £13,065,000 End-Year Flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992. It also takes account of the transfer of £9,361,000 to Vote 5 (see 3. Above).

  The change to the overall Scottish Office running costs limit will be a decrease of £774,000 from £287,346,000 to £286,572,000.

  The increases represented by these changes will be charged to the Reserve or offset elsewhere and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those local authorities which operate a total disregard scheme in relation to housing benefit for(a) both war disablement and war widows' pensions (b) war disablement pensions only, (c) war widows' pensions only, and (d) those authorities which do not operate a total disregard scheme for either category; if he will publish a table showing the annual cost of running each scheme to the local authority expressed (i) in actual terms and (ii) as a per capita cost to the population in that area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  A £10 statutory disregard of war widows' and war disablement pensions applies across the income-related benefits. Local authorities also have a discretionary power to enhance this disregard at their own expense in calculating entitlement to housing benefit and community charge benefit. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  The data requested on these local schemes has been compiled from the latest information from local authorities for the financial year 1990–91, together with the latest population figures from the 1991 census, and is listed in the tables. It is not possible to break down the annual cost between war disablement and war widows' pensions.

  Local authorities which operate a total disregard scheme in housing benefit for both war disablement and war widows' pensions

  Local authority

  Cost of scheme £

  Annual per capita cost £

  Aberconwy

  14,032

  0.26

  Aberdeen

  167,439

  0.82

  Amber Valley

  34,464

  0.31

  306

  Local authority

  Cost of scheme £

  Annual per capita cost £

  Angus

  37,555

  0.40

  Annandale

  23,217

  0.63

  Arfon

  2,050

  0.04

  Argyll-Bute

  1—

  —

  Arun

  1,726

  0.01

  Ashfield

  31,472

  0.29

  Ashford

  43,073

  0.47

  Badenoch

  2,489

  0.23

  Banff and Buchan

  39,915

  0.47

  Basingstoke

  50,838

  0.36

  Bassetlaw

  22,254

  0.22

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  2,989

  0.07

  Berwickshire

  10,022

  0.52

  Birmingham

  58,184

  0.06

  Blackpool

  13,811

  0.10

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,646

  0.04

  Boston

  24,805

  0.47

  Bracknell

  31,060

  0.33

  Bradford

  48,316

  0.11

  Braintree

  86,454

  0.75

  Brent

  23,596

  0.10

  Brentwood

  1—

  —

  Brighton

  37,864

  0.28

  Broxbourne

  24,148

  0.30

  Broxtowe

  34,290

  0.33

  Burnley

  10,962

  0.12

  Caithness

  1—

  —

  Calderdale

  1—

  —

  Cannock Chase

  4,820

  0.06

  Cardiff

  1—

  —

  Carlisle

  71,481

  0.72

  Carrick

  9,409

  0.11

  Castle Point

  27,578

  0.33

  Ceredigion

  15,262

  2—

  Charnwood

  4,055

  0.03

  Chelmsford

  63,085

  0.42

  Cheltenham

  7,081

  0.08

  Cherwell

  33,739

  0.29

  Chesterfield

  9,853

  0.10

  Chiltern

  18,686

  0.21

  Christchurch

  20,591

  0.51

  Clackmannan

  23,540

  0.49

  Clydebank

  73,548

  1.61

  Clydesdale

  21,144

  0.37

  Colwyn

  1—

  —

  Congleton

  20,747

  0.25

  Copeland

  37,560

  0.53

  Cotswold

  38,886

  0.53

  Coventry

  45,550

  0.16

  Craven

  14,674

  0.30

  Crewe & Nantwich

  22,495

  0.22

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  1—

  —

  Cumbernauld (Kils)

  8,404

  0.13

  Cumnock & Doon

  13,939

  0.33

  Cunninghame

  83,004

  0.61

  Dacorum

  2,674

  0.02

  Dartford

  34,045

  0.43

  Daventry

  10,757

  0.17

  Delyn

  4,152

  0.06

  Dumbarton

  30,432

  0.39

  Dundee

  117,578

  0.71

  Dunfermline

  56,890

  0.45

  Dwyfor

  2,764

  0.10

  Ealing

  84,383

  0.32

  East Cambridgeshire

  1,267

  0.02

  East Devon

  24,602

  0.21

  East Dorset (Wimborne)

  20,219

  0.26

  East Hertfordshire

  25,295

  0.22

  East Kilbride

  3,653

  0.04

  East Kilbride (DC)

  32,748

  3—

  Eastleigh

  35,494

  0.34

  East Lothian

  50,649

  0.60

  Eastwood

  7,383

  0.12

  East Yorkshire

  38,066

  0.45

  Eden

  1,509

  0.03

  Edinburgh

  229,339

  0.55

  307

  Local authority

  Cost of scheme £

  Annual per capita cost £

  Ellesmere Port

  24,157

  0.31

  Elmbridge

  65,740

  0.60

  Epping Forest

  3,013

  0.03

  Epsom and Ewell

  16,555

  0.25

  Erewash

  3,683

  0.04

  Etterick and Lauderdale

  17,787

  0.52

  Falkirk

  72,854

  0.52

  Forest Heath

  21,871

  0.38

  Forest of Dean

  5,285

  0.07

  Gedling

  11,099

  0.10

  Gillingham

  8,605

  0.09

  Glanford

  1—

  —

  Glasgow

  777,683

  1.17

  Glenrothes

  31,516

  3—

  Gloucester

  4,995

  0.05

  Glyndwr

  1,246

  0.03

  Gordon

  15,444

  0.20

  Gosport

  54,349

  0.75

  Great Yarmouth

  9,432

  0.11

  Guildford

  9,672

  0.08

  Hackney

  127,507

  0.78

  Halton

  1—

  —

  Hamilton

  405,806

  3.86

  Hammersmith

  92,884

  0.68

  Harborough

  5,950

  0.09

  Harlow

  1—

  —

  Harrow

  45,752

  0.24

  Hart

  20,344

  0.26

  Hartlepool

  25,916

  0.29

  Hereford

  18,847

  0.38

  Hertsmere

  27,998

  0.33

  High Peak

  4,087

  0.05

  Hillingdon

  78,211

  0.35

  Hinckley & Bosworth

  16,744

  0.18

  Horsham

  3,496

  0.03

  Hounslow

  55,386

  0.29

  Hove

  47,913

  0.58

  Huntingdon

  6,043

  0.04

  Hyndburn

  1—

  —

  Inverclyde

  1—

  —

  Inverness

  1—

  —

  Ipswich

  51,152

  0.44

  Irvine (DC)

  10,124

  3—

  Isles of Scilly

  1—

  —

  Islington

  17,349

  0.11

  Islwyn

  16,482

  0.25

  Kennet

  637

  0.01

  Kilmarnock

  41,484

  0.52

  Kincardine and Deeside

  17,853

  0.33

  Kingswood

  4,748

  0.05

  Kirklees

  210,785

  0.57

  Kyle and Carrick

  5,552

  0.05

  Lambeth 1—

  —

  Lancaster

  35,705

  0.28

  Langbaurgh

  12,890

  0.09

  Leicester

  1—

  —

  Lewes

  15,030

  0.18

  Lewisham

  138,665

  0.64

  Lichfield

  1—

  —

  Liverpool

  223,418

  0.50

  Livingston (DC)

  26,245

  3—

  Llanelli

  4,166

  0.06

  Lochaber

  6,392

  0.33

  Luton

  6,907

  0.04

  Macclesfield

  50,084

  0.34

  Maidstone

  59,698

  0.45

  Maldon

  29,749

  0.59

  Mansfield

  3,039

  0.03

  Medina

  68,524

  0.98

  Melton

  3,480

  0.08

  Mendip

  41,437

  0.43

  Merton

  144,047

  0.89

  Mid Bedfordshire

  22,442

  0.21

  Midlothian

  34,265

  0.43

  Mid Suffolk

  15,096

  0.20

  Mid Sussex

  17,225

  0.15

  308

  Local authority

  Cost of scheme £

  Annual per capita cost £

  Milton Keynes

  7,584

  0.04

  Mole Valley

  50,617

  0.65

  Monklands

  1—

  —

  Montgomery

  5,927

  2—

  Moray

  29,847

  0.36

  Motherwell

  76,749

  0.54

  Nairn

  8,818

  0.83

  Neath

  5,269

  0.08

  Newark

  15,519

  0.15

  Newbury

  32,362

  0.24

  Newcastle under Lyme

  27,219

  0.23

  Newham

  123,361

  0.62

  Nithsdale

  25,720

  0.45

  Northampton

  86,150

  0.48

  Northavon

  17,234

  0.13

  North Bedfordshire

  1—

  —

  North Cornwall

  7,713

  0.10

  North East Derby

  12,530

  0.13

  North East Fife

  24,608

  0.37

  North Hertfordshire

  45,744

  0.42

  North Kesteven

  4,070

  0.05

  North Shropshire

  11,875

  0.23

  North Tyneside

  137,017

  0.73

  North Warwickshire

  1—

  —

  North West Leicestershire

  2,293

  0.03

  North Wiltshire

  40,928

  0.37

  Nottingham

  219,914

  0.84

  Nuneaton

  32,948

  0.29

  Oadby and Wigston

  13,400

  0.26

  Ogwr

  47,574

  0.36

  Orkney

  4,035

  0.21

  Perth and Kinross

  48,030

  0.39

  Peterborough

  14,424

  0.10

  Plymouth

  43,840

  0.18

  Purbeck

  5,511

  0.13

  Radnor

  1,268

  2—

  Redbridge

  61,067

  0.28

  Redditch

  27,011

  0.35

  Reigate and Banstead

  72,856

  0.63

  Renfrew

  150,442

  0.76

  Rhuddlan

  30,230

  0.56

  Richmondshire

  3,035

  0.07

  Richmond upon Thames

  41,868

  0.27

  Rochester on Medway

  45,906

  0.32

  Rochford

  12,278

  0.17

  Ross and Cromarty

  24,776

  0.50

  Rossendale

  35,112

  0.55

  Rother

  14,491

  0.18

  Roxborough

  21,136

  0.60

  Rugby

  2,917

  0.04

  Runnymede

  37,896

  0.53

  Rushcliffe

  4,751

  0.05

  Rushmoor

  22,402

  0.28

  Rutland

  9,360

  0.29

  Ryedale

  11,873

  0.13

  Salford

  247,222

  1.13

  Sandwell

  181,950

  0.65

  Scottish Homes

  243,237

  3—

  Scunthorpe

  1—

  —

  Sedgefield

  2,778

  0.03

  Sefton

  146,667

  0.52

  Selby

  26,854

  0.30

  Sevenoaks

  22,104

  0.21

  Shetland

  6,272

  0.28

  Skye & Lochalsh

  1,570

  0.13

  Slough

  45,271

  0.46

  Solihull

  69,864

  0.36

  South Bedfordshire

  7,319

  0.07

  South Buckinghamshire

  5,138

  0.09

  South Cambridgeshire

  37,222

  0.32

  South Derbyshire

  579

  0.01

  Southend on Sea

  90,120

  0.59

  South Herefordshire

  6,091

  0.12

  South Holland

  26,422

  0.40

  South Lakeland

  26,107

  0.26

  South Northamptonshire

  12,582

  0.18

  309

  Local authority

  Cost of scheme £

  Annual per capita cost £

  South Oxfordshire

  5,449

  0.04

  South Ribble

  34,609

  0.35

  South Shropshire

  4,686

  0.12

  South Staffordshire

  21,041

  0.20

  South Tyneside

  23,794

  0.16

  Southwark

  14,858

  0.08

  South Wight

  39,074

  0.69

  Spelthorne

  53,744

  0.62

  Staffs Moorlands

  15,164

  0.16

  St. Albans

  24,326

  0.20

  Stewartry

  9,888

  0.42

  St. Helens

  124,627

  0.71

  Stirling

  43,968

  0.56

  Stockport

  1—

  —

  Stoke on Trent

  9,638

  0.04

  Stratford on Avon

  26,650

  0.26

  Strathkelvin

  21,909

  0.26

  Stroud

  26,411

  0.24

  Suffolk Coastal

  1,366

  0.01

  Surrey Heath

  28,227

  0.36

  Sutherland

  4,065

  0.31

  Sutton

  26,980

  0.16

  Swale

  29,935

  0.26

  Tameside

  151,136

  0.71

  Tamworth

  49,129

  0.71

  Tandridge

  22,896

  0.31

  Tendring

  52,723

  0.42

  Test Valley

  40,041

  0.40

  Tewkesbury

  20,229

  0.23

  Thanet

  1—

  —

  The Wrekin

  1—

  —

  Three Rivers

  30,366

  0.41

  Tower Hamlets

  3,248

  0.02

  Trafford

  42,529

  0.21

  Tweeddale

  3,555

  0.23

  Vale of White Horse

  21,579

  0.20

  Wakefield

  7,297

  0.02

  Walsall

  15,306

  0.06

  Waltham Forest

  104,801

  0.52

  Wandsworth

  40,348

  0.17

  Wansbeck

  4,147

  0.07

  Wansdyke

  1—

  —

  Watford

  6,896

  0.10

  Waverley

  1—

  —

  Welwyn Hatfield

  32,306

  0.35

  Western Isles

  26,518

  0.90

  West Lothian

  36,140

  0.25

  Westminster

  40,190

  0.22

  West Oxfordshire

  10,629

  0.12

  West Wiltshire

  50,309

  0.48

  Wigtown

  1—

  —

  Winchester

  27,308

  0.29

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1—

  —

  Wirral

  157,414

  0.49

  Working

  40,761

  0.49

  Workingham

  5,237

  0.04

  Wolverhampton

  124,899

  0.52

  Woodspring

  4,213

  0.02

  Worthing

  18,470

  0.20

  Wycombe

  75,965

  0.49

  Local authorities which operate a total disregard scheme in housing benefit for war disablement pension only

  Local authorities

  Cost of scheme £

  Annual per capita cost £

  Bath

  14,968

  0.19

  Blaby

  2,706

  0.03

  Blackburn

  68,617

  0.52

  Bolton

  60,587

  0.24

  Bromley

  53,819

  0.19

  Bury

  37,167

  0.22

  Cambridge

  26,972

  0.27

  310

  Local Authorities

  Cost of scheme £

  Annual per capita cost £

  Corby

  1—

  —

  Doncaster

  39,852

  0.14

  Dudley

  93,332

  0.31

  East Staffordshire

  15,267

  0.16

  Exeter

  22,599

  0.22

  Grimsby

  253

  0.00

  Hambleton

  10,470

  0.13

  Havering

  5,588

  0.02

  Middlesbrough

  13,641

  0.10

  Newport

  25,354

  0.20

  Oldham

  27,343

  0.13

  Ribble Valley

  2,647

  0.05

  Southampton

  8,017

  0.04

  South Somerset

  54,011

  0.39

  Stevenage

  19,761

  0.27

  Stockton on Tees

  6,386

  0.04

  Torbay

  31,912

  0.26

  Torfaen

  16,341

  0.19

  Tunbridge Wells

  1—

  —

  Vale Royal

  31,663

  0.29

  York

  1,429

  0.01

  Local authorities which operate a total disregard scheme in housing benefit for war widow's pension only

  Local authority

  Cost of scheme (£)

  Annual per capita cost (£)

  Castle Morpeth

  1—

  —

  Chester

  14,267

  0.12

  Kirkcaldy

  108,432

  1.62

  Monmouth

  20,455

  0.27

  Thurrock

  1—

  —

  1 Denotes details of cost of scheme not provided By Local authority.

  2 Denotes per capita cost calculation not possible because Ceredigion, Radnor and Montgomery include some areas where housing benefit is administered by the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  3 Denotes per capita cost calculation not possible because 1991 census figures are not yet available.

  Local authorities which do not operate a total disregard scheme in housing benefit for either war disablement or war widows' pension

  Adur

  Allerdale

  Alnwick

  Alyn and Deeside

  Aylesbury Vale

  Babergh

  Barking

  Barnet

  Barnsley

  Barrow in Furness

  Basildon

  Basildon (DC)

  Berwick upon Tweed

  Beverley

  Bexley

  Blythe Valley

  Bolsover

  Boothferry

  Bournemouth

  Breckland

  Brecknock

  Bridgnorth

  Bristol

  311

  Broadland

  Bromsgrove

  Camden

  Canterbury

  Caradon

  Carmarthen

  Chester le Street

  Chichester

  Chorley

  City of London

  Cleethorpes

  Colchester

  Corby New Town

  Crawley

  Croydon

  Cynon Valley

  Darlington

  Derby

  Derbyshire Dales

  Derwentside

  Dinefwr

  Dover

  Durham

  Easington

  Eastbourne

  East Hampshire

  East Lindsey

  East Northampton

  Enfield

  Fareham

  Fenland

  Fylde

  Gateshead

  Gravesham

  Greenwich

  Haringey

  Harrogate

  Hastings

  Havant

  Holderness

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kerrier

  Kettering

  Kingston upon Hull

  Kingston upon Thames

  Knowsley

  Leeds

  Leominster

  Lincoln

  Lliw Valley

  Malvern Hills

  Manchester

  Meirionnydd

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Mid Devon

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  New Forest

  North Devon

  North Dorset

  North Norfolk

  Norwich

  Oswestry

  Oxford

  Pendle

  Penwith

  Poole

  312

  Portsmouth

  Port Talbot

  Preseli

  Preston

  Reading

  Restormel

  Rhondda

  Rhymney Valley

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  Rural Wales

  Salisbury

  Scarborough

  Sedgemoor

  Sheffield

  Shepway

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  South Hams

  South Kesteven

  South Norfolk

  South Pembrokeshire

  Stafford

  St. Edmundsbury

  Sunderland

  Swansea

  Taff-Ely

  Taunton Deane

  Teesdale

  Teignbridge

  Telford

  Thamesdown

  Tonbridge and Malling

  Torridge

  Tynedale

  Uttlesford

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Warrington

  Warrington DC

  Warwick

  Waveney

  Wealden

  Wear Valley

  Wellingborough

  West Devon

  West Dorset

  West Lancashire

  West Lindsey

  West Norfolk

  West Somerset

  Weymouth and Portland

  Wigan

  Worcester

  Wrexham Maelor

  Wychavon

  Wyre

  Wyre Forest

  Ynys Môn

  Sight Tests
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people had sight tests in all health board areas for which figures are available in(a) the last 12–month period for which figures are available and (b) in each year since 1987–88.
  313
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February, 1993]: The information requested for each of the financial years from 1987–88 to 1991–92 is shown in the table. Information for

  Numbers of NHS sight tests1 in Scotland by Health Board area

  Health Board

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–902

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1 October 1991 to 30 September 1992

  Argyll and Clyde

  95,153

  98,926

  30,636

  39,703

  46,243

  48,096

  Ayrshire and Arran

  80,202

  85,746

  34,754

  34,606

  38,236

  39,902

  Borders

  16,123

  17,981

  7,176

  5,240

  6,316

  7,163

  Dumfries and Galloway

  29,324

  31,007

  11,761

  11,336

  13,637

  14,704

  Fife

  72,534

  76,854

  24,821

  28,556

  34,049

  35,453

  Forth Valley

  54,525

  58,847

  26,276

  18,426

  21,637

  22,354

  Grampian

  96,777

  108,592

  30,582

  33,367

  36,977

  39,129

  Greater Glasgow

  237,924

  252,843

  131,605

  110,697

  122,878

  128,436

  Highland

  36,185

  36,599

  15,841

  13,091

  15,476

  16,073

  Lanarkshire

  119,371

  119,307

  47,680

  47,983

  56,269

  58,527

  Lothian

  162,353

  176,902

  74,531

  56,682

  66,297

  69,096

  Orkney

  2,674

  2,972

  862

  873

  1,034

  1,156

  Shetland

  7,000

  7,069

  2,808

  2,420

  2,834

  2,700

  Tayside

  83,680

  90,498

  28,103

  28,132

  32,642

  34,802

  Western Isles

  4,320

  4,467

  2,043

  1,773

  2,073

  2,035

  Scotland Total

  1,098,145

  1,168,610

  475,479

  432,885

  496,598

  519,626

  1 One person may have more than one sight test in the period.

  2 Since 1 April 1989 free NHS sight tests have been available only to children, full-time students under 19, those in receipt of income support or family credit, the registered blind and partially sighted, complex lens users, those who hold an AG2 exemption certificate from the health benefits unit, diagnosed diabetic or glaucoma sufferers, and close relatives aged 40 or over of glaucoma sufferers. Information is not collected on private sight tests.

EMPLOYMENT

  Maternity Leave
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will review the maternity leave provisions to take account of(a) very premature birth of a baby of low birth weight, (b) multiple birth and (c) combination of (a) and (b).

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill gives all women, irrespective of length of service or hours of work, the right to 14 weeks' statutory maternity leave. Women with premature babies or multiple births will benefit from this right in the same way as other women.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people resident in the area in which East Lancashire training and enterprise council

  Greater Manchester

  Grade

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 January 1993

  Senior executive officer

  1

  1

  1

  Higher executive officer

  1

  1

  2

  Executive officer

  3

  3

  4

  Administrative officer

  14.5

  16

  14

  Administrative assistant

  8

  9

  11

  Typing manager

  1

  1

  —

  Typist

  11

  9

  9

  Personal secretary

  4

  3.5

  3

  Support grade band 2

  1

  1

  —

  Superintending inspector factories

  1

  1

  1

  Deputy superintending inspector factories

  2

  2

  2

  Inspector class 1A

  7

  7

  6

  Inspector class 1B

  13

  10.5

  12.5

  Inspector class 2

  9

  8

  8

  Superintending specialist inspector C

  1

  1

  1

  314
  the period October 1991 to September 1992, the last full 12-month period for which information is available, is shown separately in the table.

  operates are engaged on employment training and employment action; and what proportion they represent of the total number of eligible people.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  At December 1992, the latest date for which information is available, for the area covered by East Lancashire TEC (ELTEC) it is estimated that there are 1,200 people in training on employment training and 221 employment action participants. Information on the number of eligible people is not available.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of persons, full-time equivalent, in each grade for each section of the Health and Safety Executive in the north-west for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Available information about staffing in HSE's Field Operations Division, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, and North West areas is given in the table for 1 April 1991, 1 April 1992, and 1 January 1993. Figures for earlier years could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  315

  Grade

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 January 1993

  Principal specialist inspector

  6

  7

  5

  Specialist inspector

  11

  11

  9

  Senior scientific officer

  1

  1

  1

  Higher scientific officer

  1

  1

  1

  Scientific officer

  —

  1

  2

  Assistant scientific officer

  2

  1

  —

  Senior inspecting officer

  1

  1

  1

  Higher professional technological officer

  2

  1

  1

  Senior employment medical adviser

  1

  1

  1

  Employment medical adviser

  1.5

  1.5

  2.5

  Senior employment nursing adviser

  1

  1

  —

  Employment nursing adviser

  1

  2

  2

  Ward sister (SRN)

  1

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  107

  103.5

  100

  North West

  Grade

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 January 1993

  Higher executive officer

  1

  1

  1

  Executive officer

  2

  2

  3

  Administrative officer

  9

  9.5

  10.5

  Administrative assistant

  8

  6.5

  7.5

  Typing manager

  1

  1

  1

  Typist

  6.5

  6

  5.5

  Personal secretary

  2

  2

  2

  Support grade band 1

  1

  1

  1

  Support grade band 2

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Superintending inspector factories

  1

  —

  —

  Deputy superintending inspector factories

  1

  1

  1

  Inspector class 1A

  5

  5

  5

  Inspector class 1B

  7.5

  8.5

  11

  Inspector class 2

  9

  12

  10

  Specialist inspector

  2

  —

  1

  Senior employment medical adviser

  1

  1

  —

  Employment medical adviser

  1

  1

  1

  Employment nursing adviser

  1

  1

  2

  Deputy chief inspector agriculture

  —

  1

  1

  Principal agricultural inspector

  1

  1

  1

  Agricultural inspector

  5

  7

  7

  Assistant agricultural inspector

  2

  2

  3

  Inspector of quarries

  1

  —

  1

  TOTAL

  68.5

  70

  76

  Merseyside

  Grade

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 January 1993

  Higher executive officer

  1

  1

  1

  Executive officer

  3

  2

  4

  Administrative officer

  9

  8

  10

  Administrative assistant

  5

  8.5

  4.5

  Typing manager

  1

  1

  1

  Typist

  7

  8

  8

  Personal secretary

  2

  2

  2

  Support grade band 2

  —

  1

  1

  Superintending inspector factories

  1

  —

  1

  Deputy superintending inspector factories

  1

  1

  1

  Inspector class 1A

  6

  6

  6

  Inspector class 1B

  13

  11.5

  11.5

  Inspector class 2

  10

  10

  10

  Specialist inspector

  1

  —

  1

  Senior employment medical adviser

  1

  1

  1

  Employment medical adviser

  0.5

  2

  2

  Employment nursing adviser

  1

  2

  2

  Ward sister (SRN)

  1

  —

  —

  Principal agricultural inspector

  1

  1

  1

  Agricultural inspector

  3

  2

  2

  Assistant agricultural inspector

  2

  3

  1

  TOTAL

  69.5

  71

  71

  Unemployment Benefit Disqualification
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available regarding the lengths of periods of unemployment benefit disqualification imposed by adjudication officers in the area which includes Barnsley, Central.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. Eric Illsley, dated 4 February 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the length of periods of unemployment benefit disqualifications in the Barnsley Central area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  All decisions on claims for unemployment benefit are made by the independent adjudicating authorities.
  Information about length of disqualification periods imposed is not collated or published as each is decided in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. Without knowledge of these circumstances no meaningful interpretation of the information could be made.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the official total of unemployed for December 1992 were self-employed immediately before registering as unemployed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No information is available in respect of the claimant count. Estimates from the summer (June to August) 1992 labour force survey indicate that there were 275,000 people in Great Britain unemployed on the international standard ILO definition (not seasonally adjusted) who reported their employment status in their last job as self-employed. This represents 9.8 per cent. of total unemployed.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies in the shipbuilding and manufacturing engineering sectors have been(a) notified to and (b) filled through the Newcastle area job centres in each year since 1987; and how many people were (i) employed and (ii) seeking employment in those sectors in the Newcastle area in each of those years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the total numbers of people seeking employment, regardless of their current employment status, is not available.

  The information requested on vacancies can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. Information on the numbers employed is available only for the years 1987, 1989 and 1991 and can also be obtained from the NOMIS database there.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed in the Cheshire area in(a) September 1990, (b) September 1991 and (c) September 1992.
  318
  Mr. McLoughlin
  On the unadjusted basis, there were 23,518 unemployed claimants in the county of Cheshire in September 1990, 34,916 in September 1991 and 38,655 in September 1992.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contingency planning is undertaken by the Employment Service concerning large-scale redundancies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Nicholas Brown, dated 4 February 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about what contingency planning is undertaken by the Employment Service concerning large-scale redundancies. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  My Jobcentre managers get advance warnings of major redundancies and will contact the employer and offer appropriate support.
  We try to get involved as soon as possible in major redundancies and will normally approach the employer as soon as there is reason to believe our help is needed. We can offer a wide range of help and facilities to redundant workers, including a job placing service, special jobshops and benefit advice, depending on the actual requirements of the people and companies concerned.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the numbers of redundancies involved in each of the six largest cases of company closures in each of the last four years(a) in Newcastle and (b) nationally.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available.

  Opportunity 2000
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what conclusions and evaluations of the Opportunity 2000 initiative have been made; and what plans she has to ask training and enterprise councils to report to her on their plans for increasing child care provision and training for 1993–94.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Opportunity 2000 is not an Employment Department initiative and arrangements for its formal evaluation are those for Business in the Community to make. However, the lessons learnt so far have been that issues concerning people returning to the labour market, who are predominantly women, are being addressed in a positive and constructive way. An increasing number of employers are realising the important contribution that women make towards economic growth and stability.
  319
  TECs are required to support, where necessary, the child care costs of those in the youth training guarantee group and may make similar help available to those entering the new adult programme, Training for Work.

  From 1 April 1993 TECs will also be able to apply for a new child care grant. The purpose of the grant is for TECs, working closely with other agencies, such as local authorities and schools, to promote, set up and run after-school childcare provision.

  TECs will continue to be monitored by my Department, as they have been since their introduction.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of enterprise allowance claimants are still pursuing the business for which they received an allowance a year after the allowance was exhausted in(a) each region, (b) each TEC and (c) nationally.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will update the information given in her answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 28 October 1992,Official Report, columns 718–19; and if she will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following list shows the appointments my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made since 28 October 1992. Information on the political affiliation of appointees is not kept on record.

  Name of Body/Board: Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).

  Type of Appointment: Chairman (full-time).

  Period of Appointment: From 19 February 1993 to 31 January 1995.

  Appointee's Relevant Qualifications:

  (i) Broad practical experience of industrial relations;

  (ii) Should have a reputation for integrity and an ability to secure agreement on complex issues through negotiations.

  Current Remuneration: £65,000 per annum.

  Name of Body/Board: Certification officer for trade unions and employers' association.

  Type of Appointments: Certification officer.

  Period of Appointment: From 6 October 1992 to 5 October 1995.

  Appointee's Relevant Qualifications: None specified, but experience in industrial relations is the main criterion.

  Current Remuneration: £29,820.60 (part-time).

  Name of Body/Board: Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.

  Type of Appointment: Commissioner.

  Period of Appointment: From 26 November 1992 to 25 November 1995.

  Appointee's Relevant Qualifications: Qualified barrister, has served as a Magistrate, and was a part-time chairman of industrial tribunals for ten years.

  Current Remuneration: £239 per day.

  Name of Body/Board: Committees for the Employment of People with Disabilities (CEPDs).

  Type of Appointment:

  (i) Chairmen5.

  (ii) Members (1see note below).

  Period of Appointment:

  7 May 1992 to 31 March 1994.

  320

  25 June 1992 to 31 March 1994.

  3 July 1992 to 31 March 1994.

  19 October 1992 to 31 March 1994.

  18 January 1993 to 31 March 1994.

  Appointee's Relevant Qualifications:
  Chairmen should have good personal skills in influencing people in order to make a major contribution to the employment of people with disabilities; should be locally known with good contacts and links with people with disabilities and employers.

  Current Remuneration: Nil.

  1 Information on CEPDs members' appointments is not held centrally and is not readily available. The following details may be of use:

  The Employment Service Regional Directors and Directors for Scotland and Wales appoint members of the 60 CEPDs throughout the country, on behalf of the Secretary of State. Each committee can have up to 14 members. The majority of appointments for Chairmen and members were made at the reconstitution of committees for the period from July 1991 to 31 March 1994.

  Name of Body/Board: Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Type of Appointment: Commissioner (part-time).

  Period of Appointment: From 1 January 1993 to 31 July 1993.

  Appointee's Relevant Qualifications:
  Equal Opportunities Director. Appointees are selected on the basis of their qualifications and experience. They do not represent any particular organisation.

  Current Remuneration: £96 per day.

  Name of Body/Board: Industrial tribunals (England and Wales) and the Industrial tribunals (Scotland)

  Type of Appointment: Lay member.

  Period of Appointment:
  Members are normally appointed for 3 years and may be eligible for reappointment up to the age of 69. In 1992, 1,457 members were reappointed from 25 October. At the same time an additional 699 new members took up their appointments.

  Appointee's Relevant Qualifications:
  Practical experience of employee relations in the workplace.

  Current Remuneration: £110 per day.

  Name of Body/Board: National council for vocational qualifications

  Type of Appointment:

  Members (8)

  Periods of Appointment:

  From 9 November 1992 to 30 September 1995 (6)

  From 1 December 1992 to 30 September 1995 (1)

  From 11 January 1993 to 30 September 1995 (1)

  Appointee's Relevant Qualifications:
  The representation of interests on the complete Council is three members for education, eight for employers, one for profession and one for trade unions, plus the chairperson. Appointees are chosen for their knowledge and expertise in the area of representation.

  Current Remuneration: Nil.

  Name of Body/Board: Wages Council: Perambulator and Invalid Carriage.

  Type of Appointment: Deputy Chairman.

  Period of Appointment: From 18 January 1993 to 31 December 1995.

  Appointee's Relevant Qualifications:
  Appointee is Deputy Chairman of the General Waste Materials Wages Council and Third member on both the Retail Trades (Non-food) and the Perambulator and Invalid Carriage Councils.

  Current Remuneration: £88 per day.

  Name of Body/Board: Women's National Commission (WNC)

  The WNC became the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Employment after the General Election of 1992.

  Type of Appointment:

  (i) Government Co-Chair (1)

  (ii) Elected Co-Chair (1)

  (iii) Executive Members (10 Elected by members)

  321

  (iv) Members (50 Representatives of member organisations)

  Period of Appointment:

  (i) Two years

  (ii) Two years

  (iii) One year

  (iv) Five years

  Appointee's Relevant Qualifications:
  The Commission is headed by two co-chairs, one elected by members, one nominated by the Prime Minister. Baroness Denton is currently the Government Co-Chair. While member organisations are approved by Government individual members of the Commission are nominated by those organisations, not personally appointed by Ministers. Of the member organisations three have definite political affiliations. These are:

  Labour Party Women's Organisation

  Conservative Women's National Committee

  Women's Liberal Democrat Party

  Current Remuneration: Nil.

  Appointments since October 1992
  Five new members have been appointed since October 1992 to replace members who have retired from the Commission.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes she plans to her Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1992–93.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 1—programmes and central services—will be reduced by £27,510,000 from £2,481,255,000 to £2,453,745,000. This reduction is mainly the net effect of lower than expected levels of expenditure on employment training and employment action programmes partly offset by increases in expenditure elsewhere on the vote, predominantly business and enterprise, training and education support and running costs (mainly for increased costs associated with the internal reorganisation of the Department and increased costs relating to higher volumes of redundancy payments). There is also an increase in expenditure on projects assisted by the European social fund offset by receipts from the European Communities, and transfers between votes.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 2—Employment Service—will be increased by a token £1,000 from £522,682,000 to £522,683,000. This is mainly the result of an increase in running costs which is chiefly in connection with the increased costs of administration of unemployment benefit payments offset by increased receipts from the Department of Social Security and, therefore, the increase will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The running cost limit for the Department of Employment, votes 1 and 2, will be increased by £38,484,000 from £1,205,045,000 to £1,243,529,000 for the reasons outlined above.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 3—Health and Safety Commission and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—will be decreased by £2,071,000 from £196,936,000 to £194,865,000. This is the result of a reduction in running costs provision to help cover increases on vote 1, partly offset by an increase of £ 150,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry to provide assistance and advice to the Bulgarian Nuclear Safety Authority.

  The running costs limit for the Health and Safety Commission will be decreased by £2,056,000 from
  322
  £151,774,000 to £149,718,000 and the running costs limit for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service will be decreased by £165,000 from £21,467,000 to £21,302,000.

  Food Service Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has to remedy unfair trade practices in the food service industry, especially in regard to young people or students; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 10 December 1992]: If the hon. Member has in mind terms and conditions of employment, these are for employers and employees to negotiate and agree subject to any statutory requirements.

HEALTH

  HIV
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline the most recent findings of the unlinked anonymous monitoring of HIV prevalence in England and Wales; what levels of HIV were found in patients of district general hospitals aged between 16 to 49 years; what projections had been made for this age group; what plans she has to extend anonymous HIV testing among district general hospital patients or to increase prevention activities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The most recent findings from the unlinked anonymised HIV surveys in England and Wales were published in the Public Health Laboratory Services (PHLS) communicable disease report of 1 January 1993, copies are available in the Library.

  The results included initial findings from a pilot survey conducted in two London district general hospitals. HIV prevalence in patients aged 16 to 49 attending specialities thought unlikely to be associated with HIV related illnesses was one in 170 for men and one in 600 for women. The great majority of AIDS cases and HIV infection diagnosed in England and Wales has been within this age group.

  The results of the surveys indicate that HIV remains a cause for concern and that public education work should continue to draw attention to the risks of HIV infection and how these risks can be reduced. The findings from all elements of the anonymised HIV survey programme will be taken into account in the further development of the HIV prevention strategies.

  The Day report published by the PHLS in 1990 included a projection of the incidence of AIDS to the end of 1993, but not HIV infections.

  The Medical Research Council is considering proposals from the PHLS to expand the general hospital study.

  Mrs. Tracey Evans
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 540, what assessment she has made of the impartiality and thoroughness of the inquiry of the area child protection committee and as to why Mr. Evans was not invited to give evidence or be interviewed.

  Mr. Yeo
  Government guidance in 'Working Together under the Children Act 1989' explains that the area child
  323
  protection committee review is a composite review of the reports of individual agencies, completed following reviews by those agencies to establish:
  whether the agency child protection procedures have been followed;
  whether the case suggests that there is an urgent need to review those procedures and
  whether any other action is needed within agencies.
  The area child protection committee does not carry out a direct inquiry and it is not normal practice for it to seek evidence from individuals for this purpose.

  Community Care
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library her Department's guidance to local authorities to ensure the provision of human aids to communication during community care assessment procedures for deaf or hard of hearing people.

  Mr. Yeo
  We fully recognise the importance of communication for people with a hearing impairment. The Department's social services inspectorate and the social work services group of the Scottish Office issued practice guidance on care management and assessment in 1991: "Care Management and Assessment: Practitioners Guide". This document advises local authorities that users and carers should receive every help to speak and act for themselves in the assessment process, including ready access to interpreting services where necessary. Copies are available in the Library. The Department will also be supporting a conference in June for managers in health and social services aimed at improving awareness of the communication needs of people with a hearing impairment.

  Head Injury Deaths
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from head injuries in England and Wales in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Numbers of deaths from head injuries (ICD 800–804 and 850–854) in England and Wales, 1980 to 1991

  Year

  Persons

  1980

  4,385

  1981

  3,910

  1982

  4,064

  1983

  4,129

  1984

  4,172

  1985

  4,065

  1986

  4,022

  1987

  4,091

  1988

  3,856

  1989

  3,994

  1990

  4,156

  1991

  3,754

  Condoms
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the Bolton project for the distribution of free condoms, to the rest of England and Wales.

  Mr. Yeo
  There are about 30 similar projects, evaluating the provision of sexual health counselling and 324
  free condoms by general practitioners, currently being conducted around England and Wales. In the 1992 "Allocation for HIV and AIDS work" letter (EL(92)18), the Department suggested that health authorities consider using HIV prevention money for such schemes. The Department is keeping in close touch with many of the pilot projects and awaiting further results with interest.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in the project to distribute free condoms via general practitioners in Bolton.

  Mr. Yeo
  This project is currently the subject of local consultation. It is hoped to begin a pilot scheme on 1 April 1993. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of Bolton family health services authority, Mr. A. J. Pettengell, for details.

  Hospital Patients
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in directly managed units and trusts(a) from NHS purchasers and (b) from non-NHS purchasers in 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Hospices
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total government funding to voluntary hospices in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government greatly appreciate the contribution which the voluntary hospice movement makes to the provision of specialised care and support for the terminally ill and their families. Our commitment to the movement has been shown by the allocation of funds to regional health authorities to enable them to increase their support.

  In 1988–89, and 1989–90, there were one-off payments to voluntary hospices. Funds were allocated to the hospice movement, through the charity 'Help the Hospices' as a one-off award to help hospices facing financial dificulties. In 1988–89, payments were made to help with the costs of nurses' pay awards. Since 1990–91, the Government have allocated funds annually to regional health authorities specifically to enable them to increase the support they give to voluntary hospices. Since 1991–92, funds have also been provided to ensure the supply of drugs to hospices without charge.

  Funding since 1988 is as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  1.4

  1989–90

  0.4

  1990–91

  8.0

  1991–92

  20.2

  1992–93

  38.2

  1993–94

  42.9

  Dentists (North Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many adult and child patients have been de-registered by their dentists for national health service treatment in north bevon to date;
  325
  (2) how many dentists in North Devon have become private practitioners since the alteration to their contracts; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about numbers of patients de-registered by dentists has been collected only since 3 July 1992. By 22 January 1993, 11,491 adults and 272 children were reported by Devon FHSA as de-registered by their dentist. On 1 July 1992 there were 514,766 adults and 156,443 children registered by Devon FHSA. By 30 November, the latest date available, these totals were 511,987 and 167,228 respectively.

  Information on the number of dentists who have become private practitioners since the alteration to their contracts is not held centrally.

  Monkton Nursery, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 723, what representations she has received about Monkton nursery, Liverpool; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received 13 letters from the hon. Member on behalf of his constituents. The Department's social services inspectorate is making inquiries about the matter.

  Sight Tests (Sandwell)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had sight tests in Sandwell in each financial year since 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of National Health Service sight tests paid for in each financial year by the Sandwell family health services authority are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of sight tests

  1987–88

  90,020

  1988–89

  92,230

  11989–90

  44,830

  1990–91

  34,860

  1991–92

  40,570

  Note: The Department does not collect information on the number of private sight tests carried out.

  1From April 1989, NHS sight tests were restricted to certain groups in the population. The sight tests paid for in 1989–90 include some conducted prior to 1 April 1989, when sight tests were universally

  Number of authorised pay beds in NHS hospitals

  Regions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  56

  56

  78

  103

  103

  105

  95

  101

  96

  99

  97

  97

  Yorkshire

  140

  140

  154

  182

  199

  199

  193

  193

  187

  192

  188

  188

  Trent

  130

  130

  150

  143

  143

  143

  138

  136

  128

  136

  136

  136

  East Anglian

  90

  90

  94

  106

  106

  108

  108

  108

  96

  108

  108

  108

  North West Thames

  339

  339

  352

  292

  292

  292

  287

  285

  271

  285

  283

  283

  North East Thames

  278

  278

  286

  398

  404

  410

  413

  411

  347

  393

  411

  411

  South East Thames

  263

  263

  302

  332

  337

  337

  339

  341

  322

  333

  333

  333

  South West Thames

  156

  156

  168

  180

  182

  194

  182

  180

  141

  180

  180

  180

  Wessex

  99

  99

  106

  117

  120

  120

  116

  116

  105

  115

  116

  116

  Oxford

  164

  164

  180

  180

  180

  180

  183

  193

  188

  193

  194

  194

  South Western

  78

  78

  82

  102

  104

  104

  104

  102

  96

  100

  100

  100

  West Midlands

  181

  181

  217

  258

  267

  276

  273

  270

  209

  281

  276

  276

  Mersey

  67

  67

  92

  112

  123

  123

  123

  129

  123

  129

  129

  129

  North Western

  170

  170

  214

  231

  244

  245

  243

  237

  207

  233

  233

  227

  326
  available. The remainder paid for in 1989–90 do not represent a full year under the new system, because of the delay in payments. The figure for 1989–90 is not, therefore, directly comparable with that for 1990–91.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on waiting lists for under one year, one to two years, and two years or more in March and September of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is given in the table. This shows that at September 1992 the number of patients waiting over a year was 60 per cent. lower than in March 1988. In 1991–92 alone, the number of over-one-year waiters fell by almost 90,000. Today, regions no longer have any patients waiting two years or more for any in-patient or day case treatment.

  Number of people on waiting lists in the last five years

  England In-patients and day cases

  Waiting 0 to 1 year

  Waiting one to two years

  Waiting two years or more

  1988

  March

  668,300

  120,100

  87,900

  September

  680,100

  128,100

  91,900

  1989

  March

  699,400

  131,100

  92,200

  September

  710,900

  130,000

  88,100

  1990

  March

  751,100

  127,000

  80,900

  September

  754,800

  131,600

  71,100

  1991

  March

  778,500

  118,700

  51,100

  September

  789,300

  115,000

  43,500

  1992

  March

  837,100

  78,900

  1,700

  September1

  859,156

  80,039

  651

  1 Provisional figures from Regional Health Authorities.

  Private Beds
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of private beds available in each regional health authority in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The requested information, which is the latest available, is given in the table.
  327

  Regions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Special Health Authorities and Boards of Governors

  194

  194

  202

  183

  183

  183

  178

  178

  177

  160

  178

  178

  England

  2,405

  2,405

  2,677

  2,919

  2,987

  3,019

  2,975

  2,980

  2,693

  2,937

  2,962

  2,956

  Dentistry
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women were eligible for free dental service during pregnancy and one year after the birth of the child, for each of the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is given in the table.

  General dental services Number of expectant or nursing mothers eligible for exemption from NHS dental charges in England

  Year

  Monthly average number eligible

  1981

  960,000

  1982

  940,000

  1983

  940,000

  1984

  950,000

  1985

  980,000

  1986

  990,000

  1987

  1,020,000

  1988

  1,040,000

  1989

  1,030,000

  1990

  1,050,000

  Note: The numbers of women eligible for free NHS dental treatment during pregnancy and one year after giving birth have been estimated from the monthly number of live and still births in England in the years shown.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pregnant women/nursing mothers have been exempted from NHS dental charges in each of the last 10 years; what has been the cost of their exemption in each year; and what estimate she has made of the saving to the Exchequer of removing this exemption.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Information on the number and cost of courses of treatment given to expectant and nursing mothers is given in the table.

  General Dental Services—England Number and cost of courses of treatment to expectant and nursing mothers

  Year

  Number of courses

  Cost of courses (£)

  1982

  885,410

  23,590,780

  1983

  893,290

  24,783,350

  1984

  897,630

  27,109,140

  1985

  910,650

  28,889,630

  1986–87

  976,420

  34,162,740

  1987–88

  986,030

  35,021,050

  1988–89

  1,022,800

  39,076,930

  1989–90

  1,052,010

  40,799,800

  1990–911

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  1,120,283

  45,998,319

  1 Data for 1990–91 are not available.

  328
  It is not possible to estimate the cost of the exemptions over this period both because the charging regimes have changed many times over the period and because some women will have been able to claim exemption or remission on one or more grounds. This factor affects the interpretation of the table.

  No precise estimate has been made of any saving to the Exchequer of removing this exemption.

  District Nursing Service, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the future of the district nursing service in Liverpool.

  Mr. Sackville
  The management of nursing services in Liverpool is the responsibility of Liverpool health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the authority chairman, Mr. D. H. Tod, for details.

  OPCS
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes are planned to the cash limits and running costs limits for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XIII, vote 6 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) will be increased by £889,000 from £37,057,000 to £37,946,000 and the running costs limit for OPCS will be increased by £1,568,000 from £46,002,000 to £47,570,000. This reflects the take-up of £504,000 under the end year flexibility arrangements for running costs as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992, at columns 697–702; an increase in running costs provision of £207,000 in respect of a transfer of funds from Property Holdings; and increased running costs provision of £300,000 for work on problems connected with census outputs and increased staff costs which will be partly offset by a decrease in capital provision of £122,000. The increases not offset will be charged to the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The following increases will also affect the running costs limit; £232,000 in the National Health Central Register area for work on the Department of Health's National Health Service number programme and additional research work; £325,000 for the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission. There will also be increases in capital provision of £25,000 for the National Health Central Register and £66,000 for the Parliamentary Boundary Commission. These increases will be offset by an increase in appropriations in aid on the OPCS vote and met from within the existing resources of the Department of Health (class XIII, vote 3) and the Home Office (class IX, vote 3) and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made to the cash limhts and the running costs of her Department in 1992–93.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XIII, vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England) will be increased by £28,278,000, from £18,509,508,000 to £18,537,786,000. This increase covers additions of £42,116,000 for entitlements to carry over underspends under the end year flexibility arrangements as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992, at columns 697–702. The increase also covers transfers from class XIII, vote 3 (Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) of £8,302,000 (£4,316,000 for work of the valuation office; £1,750,000 in respect of an adjustment in HIV funding; £871,000 for day and domiciliary care; £613,000 for the British National Formulary and Drugs and Therapeutic Bulletin; £390,000 in respect of the National Health Service Estates and Health Building Agency; £307,000 for the National Health Service Supplies Authority and £55,000 for the Association of Community Health Councils) and £351,000 for class IV, vote 2 (Department of Trade and Industry: support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration) for licence fees for use of the radio spectrum. These increases are partly offset by transfers of £22,308,000 to class XIII, vote 4, (Family health services (part) national health service trusts external financing, etc., England) for an increase in the national health service trusts' aggregate external financing limit; of £146,000 to class XIII, vote 3 (£110,000 for oral polio vaccines and £36,000 for the Special Hospital Service Authority) and £37,000 to class XVI, vote 5 (Tourism, roads and transport, other environmental services (including civil defence), education, arts and libraries and health and personal social services, Wales) for career registrars.

  The cash limit class XIII, vote 3 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be reduced by £3,277,000 (from £821,523,000 to £818,246,000). This reduction allows for transfers £8,302,000 to class XIII, vote 1; £130,000 to class XI, vote 2 (Department for Education higher and further education) for the conversion of social work training courses; £47,000 to class XV, vote 25 (Hospital and community health services, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland), £23,000 to class XVI, vote 8 (Hospital and community health, family health services (part) and related services, Wales); £13,000 to the Department of Social Services, Northern Ireland in respect of the NHS Estates Management and Health Building Agency and £62,000 to class XIV, vote 4 (Department of Social Security, administration and miscellaneous services) in respect of Departmental administration. The overall reduction is partly offset by £3,929,000 for the take-up of entitlements to carry over underspends under the end year flexibility arrangements as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1992, at columns 697–702 (capital £2,655,000 and departmental running cost of £1,264,000); the transfer of increased provision of £422,000 from class VIII, vote 7 (Department of the Environment Property Holdings and
  330
  central support services); civil accommodation and administration, etc) in respect of club subscription charges; transfer of £146,000 from class XIII, vote 1; transfer of £45,000 from class VI, vote 1 (Department of Employment: programmes and central services) for advice on alcohol in the workplace and £758,000 transferred from class XIV, vote 4 (Department of Social Security: administration and miscellaneous services) mainly for printing costs, departmental administration, computer systems and for costs in respect of Age Concern.

  The Department's gross running cost limit will be reduced by £2,627,000 from £269,236,000 to £266,609,000. This reflects the take-up of £1,264,000 end year flexibility on running costs, offset by the net effect of transfers mentioned above.

  All increases will either be offset by savings or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Children Act 1989
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress made in implementing the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am pleased to be able to announce that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales have today submitted our first joint report to Parliament on the Children Act in operation in England and Wales. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report, which contains a full description of the operation and achievements of the Act, highlights a number of striking and encouraging features. Overall, local authorities are to be commended for their generally positive response to their new duties under the Act and in particular for the way in which their child care interventions have become more sharply focused, with more children remaining at home with their own families.

  In line with the intentions of the Act, I can report that:

  (i) almost 3,000 or approximately 50 per cent. fewer emergency orders were made in the first year giving authority for the removal of a child at home;

  (ii) there has been a substantial fall in the number of children entering compulsory care. Some 1,600 were subject to a compulsory care order under the Children Act in the first year compared with nearly four times as many under similar orders previously;

  (iii) some 5,000 or 10 per cent. fewer children were being looked after by local authorities at the end of March compared with a year before.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the names and addresses of limited companies set up by general practitioner fund holders in the last three years;

  (2) how much has been paid from public funds, in real terms to limited companies set up by general practitioner fund holders (a) individually and (b) in total in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (3) if she will list the names of general practitioner fund holders who have been invited to return money from the limited companies to the national health service or risk losing their fund-holding status; which of them have been asked to return sums (a) between £50,000 and £100,000 and (b) over £100,000; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by her Department to regional health authorities about speculative investment in the property market.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities are not allowed to invest speculatively in the property market. In certain circumstances, they may acquire land by agreement and manage and deal with land in order to make more income available to the health service. Departmental guidance is given in "Property Transactions in the NHS" which specifically prohibits investment in property and land dealing markets.

  Surgery
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent evaluation she has made, and proposes to make, of the costs and benefits of reduction and elimination of long wait elective surgery cases; and if she will publish such a study at appropriate intervals.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Waiting times have improved dramatically under this Government and we are determined to build on this success. Since 1987 we have provided a waiting time fund totalling nearly £200 million which has enabled additional long-wait patients to be treated from waiting lists. The introduction of the waiting time guarantee under the patients charter means that for the first time patients do not have to face an interminable wait for treatment.

  Social Work Training
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the development and implementation of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work post-qualifying framework for social work training; what has been spent so far; how many post-qualifying awards have been made to date; and how many it is expected will be made within the next 12 months.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) is in the process of developing a framework for post-qualifying education and training social work, with funding provided by the Government. A five-year implementation plan commenced in 1991–92 as part of the overall Government training strategy.

  The framework will be implemented by 30 regionally-based consortia composed of educational institutions and employing agencies in the statutory and independent sectors. Fifteen of these have been established and the others are in the process of being established. It is anticipated that United Kingdom-wide coverage will be completed by mid-1993 and that they will have completed their development work by mid-1995.

  Expenditure by CCETSW on the development and implementation of the new arrangements in England, Wales and Northern Ireland between 1989–90 and 1992–93 amounts to £1.2 million.

  CCETSW anticipates that 40 awards will be made in 1993–94 and that thereafter numbers will increase considerably.

  Mersey Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement setting out the cost, the date, address and reasons for the decision of the Mersey regional health authority recently to purchase a flat in Liverpool; and if she will indicate the number of occasions upon which that property has been used so far, by whom, upon what dates, and for what purposes.

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand the Mersey regional health authority recently purchased a flat from its endowment funds. It is used to accommodate visitors for whom the region would otherwise have to meet hotel costs. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Professor Breckenridge, chairman of Mersey RHA, for further details.

  Retinopathy of Prematurity
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to her answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 481, when she expects to complete her discussions with those professional bodies concerned with conducting research studies into retinopathy of prematurity;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 22 January, Official Report, column 481, if she will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines issued by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and the College of Ophthalmologists on the care of retinopathy of prematurity;

  (3) pursuant to her answer of 22 January, Official Report, column 481, if she will estimate her Department's total expenditure since 1980, at constant prices, on research into the cause and treatment of retinopathy of prematurity.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: I have today placed in the Library copies of the guidelines on the care of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) drawn up by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and College of Ophthalmologists.

  Discussions between departmental officials, professional bodies and researchers about research studies into ROP, referred to in my earlier reply of 22 January at column 481, will be completed shortly. Funding has currently been earmarked for a suitable research proposal. The Department has not hitherto commissioned any research into ROP over the period in question.

  Pneumoconiosis
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many former miners have been affected by pneumoconiosis in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for British Coal.

  DHA Mergers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authority amalgamations are already taking place; and if she will list them.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers have approved the following nine district health authority mergers to come into effect from 1 April 1993:
  333

  West and East Suffolk District Health Authorities;

  Lewisham and North Southwark, Camberwell and West Lambeth District Health Authorities;

  Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings District Health Authorities;

  Kingston and Esher and Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Health Authorities;

  Aylesbury, Wycombe and Milton Keynes District Health Authorities;

  Hull and East Yorkshire District Health Authorities;

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe District Health Authorities;

  Calderdale, Dewsbury and Huddersfield Health Authorities;

  Pontefract and Wakefield District Health Authorities.

WALES

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what benefits will accrue to Wales from the proposals to establish an environmental protection agency jointly covering the Principality and England.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The proposed new Environment Agency will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on its activities in the Principality and will unify the key regulatory pollution control functions affecting air, land and water; provide a strong independent voice influencing the adoption of better environmental standards and practices; and help industry by reducing the number of regulators and ending overlaps between them. There will be an appropriate presence by the agency in Wales, for it to be accessible to the public and to those it will regulate in the Principality.

  Special Needs Pupils
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children with special educational needs have entered segregated special schools at(a) primary and (b) secondary level in every local education authority area of Wales in each of the last five years; and how many pupils at (a) primary and (b) secondary school level in each area have attended special schools during the same period.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of children with special educational needs entering special schools each year is not collected centrally.

  Information on the number of full-time pupils who attend special schools is provided in the series of publications entitled 'Statistics of Education in Wales: Schools', Section 1, table 1.10, for previous years up to and including 1990–91. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Youth and Community Work
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from the Welsh Association of Full-time Youth and Community Workers over the level of provision for their work on education and development.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Environmental Managers Network Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress made in his Department's scheme to establish in Wales an environmental managers network programme in conjunction with the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since the launch in July 1992, 87 companies have joined the Welsh environmental managers network, and membership has increased at a steady pace. Of these, 21 are from north Wales, 7 are from south-west Wales, 40 from south-east Wales and 19 from mid Wales.

  A mini-launch of the network in conjunction with the Development Board for Rural Wales took place on 20 January 1993, in Newtown, Powys. Since that date membership in the mid Wales region has increased from two to 19. All inquiries for membership in mid Wales will be routed through the Development Board for Rural Wales. A list of members is displayed in the Library of the House, and brought up to date at three-monthly intervals.

  A470
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the improvements to the A470 between Betws-y-Coed and Blaenau Ffestiniog are to be commenced; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  These improvements are planned for the medium and long term and thus not expected to start before April 1995.

  Health Service Administration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that the numbers of administrative and managerial grade staff employed in the national hospital service does not exceed the numbers of medical consultants.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. The required employees for any grade in the national health service must be as is appropriate for the provision of the best health care for patients.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the latest conclusions of the sub-group on internal management submitted to the Welsh consultative council on local government reform.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I expect shortly to receive a report from the sub-group. This will be considered by the Consultative Council on Local Government at its next meeting. A copy of the final report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  "Environmental Digest for Wales"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the next edition of his Department's environmental digest for Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The seventh edition of the 'Environmental Digest for Wales' is due to be published on 31 March 1993.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 30 October 1992,Official Report, columns 866–908; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information is not collected about the political affiliations, if any, of appointees. Although these are public and well known in some cases, in other cases they are either not known at all or are known only on a private basis.

  As the updated information requested is some 50 pages in length, I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Expenditure on youth and community services as a percentage of all revenue expenditure1

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Clwyd

  0.61

  0.66

  0.62

  0.60

  0.61

  0.61

  0.56

  0.55

  0.55

  0.57

  0.57

  0.55

  Dyfed

  1.14

  1.06

  1.02

  1.11

  1.12

  1.06

  1.01

  0.99

  0.95

  0.78

  0.79

  0.89

  Gwent

  1.24

  1.21

  1.27

  1.37

  1.43

  0.67

  0.66

  0.68

  0.72

  0.77

  0.67

  0.75

  Gwynedd

  0.47

  0.49

  0.54

  0.59

  0.64

  0.78

  0.94

  0.95

  0.86

  0.87

  0.58

  0.81

  Mid Glamorgan

  1.18

  1.14

  1.08

  1.15

  1.13

  1.22

  1.61

  1.60

  1.38

  0.84

  0.90

  1.14

  Powys

  0.82

  0.84

  1.21

  1.51

  1.54

  1.38

  1.34

  1.31

  1.38

  1.67

  3.87

  2.67

  South Glamorgan

  1.55

  1.30

  1.14

  1.24

  1.28

  1.30

  1.19

  1.14

  1.11

  1.37

  1.25

  1.78

  West Glamorgan

  0.99

  0.92

  0.89

  0.93

  0.90

  0.85

  0.86

  0.79

  0.77

  0.74

  0.77

  0.78

  1 Calculated using outturn information reported by local authorities for gross revenue expenditure on employees, running expenses, debt charges and revenue contributions to capital. Definitions changed in 1990–91; hence figures for this year are not strictly comparable with those for earlier years.

  HLCA (Gwynedd)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many producers are entitled to hill livestock compensatory allowances in Gwynedd; and how many of those are located in severely disadvantaged areas.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Some 2,900 claimants in Gwynedd currently receive hill livestock compensatory allowance. Of these, some 1,900 have land located in the severely disadvantaged areas.

  Net Farm Income in Welsh SDAs

  Hill and upland cattle and sheep

  Hill and upland sheep

  Year

  Nominal price £

  Real price £

  Nominal Index

  Real Index

  Nominal price £

  Real price £

  Nominal Index

  Real Index

  1978–79

  7,358

  19,363

  84

  181

  6,867

  18,071

  104

  189

  1979–80

  4,082

  9,493

  47

  89

  2,871

  6,676

  43

  69

  1980–81

  6,222

  12,200

  67

  107

  5,877

  11,523

  92

  124

  1981–82

  7,770

  13,632

  119

  171

  8,808

  15,453

  130

  157

  1982–83

  6,746

  11,059

  100

  134

  6,242

  10,233

  100

  113

  1983–84

  6,649

  10,389

  93

  119

  8,598

  13,434

  132

  142

  1984–85

  7,658

  11,430

  96

  117

  9,740

  14,537

  201

  206

  1985–86

  8,353

  11,765

  112

  129

  7,943

  11,188

  138

  133

  1986–87

  9,348

  12,805

  113

  127

  9,792

  13,414

  153

  144

  1987–88

  12,491

  16,435

  138

  149

  9,380

  12,342

  144

  130

  1988–89

  8,489

  10,611

  178

  181

  8,328

  10,410

  204

  175

  1989–90

  10,881

  12,507

  109

  102

  9,468

  10,883

  135

  107

  1990–91

  8,680

  9,137

  83

  71

  10,804

  11,373

  122

  88

  1991–92

  13,457

  13,457

  155

  126

  16,540

  16,540

  153

  105

  Note: Real prices and real indices are based on 1989–1992 = 100.

  Certificate of Education
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from educational organisations and schools regarding the future of the certificate of education in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Representations have, so far, been received from the Welsh joint education committee and four secondary schools. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 2 February 1993.

  Youth and Community Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount spent as a percentage of their budget by each local authority in Wales on youth and community services for young people and adults in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Farm Incomes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the net farm income for sheep and sheep and cattle farms in severely disadvantaged areas, in both nominal and real terms since 1978.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Estimates of net farm income based on the results of the farm business survey are provided in the table. Year-on-year comparison can best be made by reference to the indices shown in the table which are based on the results from a constant sample of farms.

  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what independent studies and evaluation exercises he has undertaken of the deprivation factor in the calculation of the health spending formula in the different health authorities in Wales;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the Welsh health authorities on the variation of the capitation formula for procurement and primary health care to correspond to variations in deprivation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A review of the relationship between morbidity, social deprivation and health care needs was carried out for the Welsh Office by Dr. Roy Carr Hill of the University of York Centre for Health Economics in 1990. Dr. Carr Hill's report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, helped to inform my right hon. Friend's decision, following consultation with health authorities, on the structure of the weighted capitation formula for health authority revenue allocations in Wales. The House was informed of this on 21 March 1991, at columns 178–80.

  Copies of the relevant consultation paper, "Implementing the White Paper: Options for a Weighted Capitation Revenue Resource Allocation Formula", are in the Library of the House. The treatment of social deprivation is amongst the issues examined in the paper.

  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is willing to review the formula used in Wales if agreed methods can be devised to distinguish the effects of higher levels of sickness and social deprivation on the relative resource needs of health authorities in Wales.

  The Welsh Office will be examining the 1991 census data now becoming available to see how this impacts upon the formula shares of health authorities in Wales. It has also invited Mid Glamorgan health authority to submit a research proposal to examine further how the effects of social deprivation might be reflected specially in the formula and how this might be weighted compared to the overall "sickness factor" currently used. Subject to the research proposal satisfying other authorities and academic referees, central funding towards such research will be considered.

  General Practices
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the number of general practices in Wales with(a) no female general practitioner in the practice, (b) a part-time only female general practitioner, (c) a full-time female general practitioner but not in partnership and (d) other; and if he will make a statement.

  Medical staff in post as at1

  30 September 1979

  30 September 1990

  230 September 1991

  Consultants

  614.1

  826.5

  839.7

  Senior registrars

  112.8

  138.7

  143.8

  Registrars

  321.6

  357.1

  352.4

  Junior hospital doctors3

  669.6

  898.2

  866.2

  1 Whole-time equivalents excluding locum staff and hospital dental staff.

  2 Provisional.

  3 House officers and senior house officers.

  338
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information relates to partnerships and single-handed practitioners. Of the 550 in Wales as at 1 April 1992 there were:

  (a) 281 which had no female practitioner;

  (b) 42 which had one female part-time practitioner;

  (c) 11 female practitioners who practised as single-handed doctors;

  (d) 216 partnerships which had at least one full-time female practitioner.

  The information provided relates to principals, unrestricted and restricted, in general practice. Information relating to the number of female trainees and assistants in general practice has not been included, as the data required at individual partnership level is not readily available.

  Waste Incinerator (South Glamorgan)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the emissions from the waste incinerator stack.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the pollution control provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the prime regulatory responsibility for incinerators such as that operated by South Glamorgan health authority at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff rests with the local district council. I understand that Cardiff city council is in close contact with the health authority about the cause of the recent emission problems and how these may be remedied.

  Welsh Development Agency (Chairman)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 887, what activities he undertook prior to the placing of the advertisement for the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to secure a suitable field of candidates; and what recruitment consultants he has hired to assist in the process.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Quite a lot; none.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the number of full-time equivalent(a) consultants, (b) senior registrars, (c) registrars and (d) junior hospital doctors employed in the national health service in Wales; and what were the equivalent figures for the years 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information for 1990 and 1991 is given in the table. No estimate of the position in 1992 can yet be made. This can be compared with the figures for 1979.

  School Governors (Ring-binder Contracts)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 51, if he will give the cost of each of the two ring-binder contracts for school governors under local management of schools.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Twenty-two thousand five hundred and seventy-two pounds, and £13,925.

  Valleys Initiative (Leaflet Contract)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the valleys initiative leaflet contract.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The values of the six contracts for the production of leaflets on the programme for the valleys were: £22,028.25; £10,360.00; £4,639.67; £3,279.00; £3,050.00 and £1,513.40.

  County Councils (Expenditure)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount he proposes to transfer to each of the Welsh county councils equivalent to the present expenditure on the independent living fund.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Successor arrangements to the independent living fund announced on 24 November by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will involve local authorities working in partnership with the new fund to help people of working age with the most severe disabilities to live independently in the community. The sums within local authorities' standard spending assessments for 1993–94 attributable to their enhanced responsibilities under these arrangements are as follows:

  £ thousands

  Clwyd

  230

  Dyfed

  192

  Gwent

  253

  Gwynedd

  130

  Mid Glamorgan

  308

  Powys

  65

  South Glamorgan

  231

  West Glamorgan

  205

  Total

  1,614

  Revenue Support Grant (Capital Receipts)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his assumptions in relation to capital receipts in his revenue support grant announcement for local authorities for 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have, as in previous years, made certain assumptions in relation to capital receipts in the revenue support grant calculations, including those set out in the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1993–94 (HC 412) in note 1(d)(v) to table 1.2 on page 13 and in note (f)(vi) to table 1.5 on page 19. All assumptions have been agreed with the local authority associations.

  Earnings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the average weekly earnings of(a) women and (b) men in Wales in each year since 1985.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is available from the new earnings survey (part A or E), an annual publication produced by the Employment Department. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was personal income per head in Wales in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest available information is for 1990 when the average personal income per head of population in Wales was £7,236.

  Melrose Centre, Shotton
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Clwyd county council social services division, Melrose centre, Shotton to meet the user groups.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has plans to do so at present.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

"Braer" Sinking: Proposed Code
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What interim action they propose to take pending the completion of the inquiries they have announced into the sinking of the oil tanker "Braer".
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, Department of Transport officials today met organisations representing oil companies, tanker operators and shipping interests. I am pleased to report that agreement has been reached on voluntary measures in the form of a code which will be promulgated by mid-March and which will be transmitted to the IMO for consideration and endorsement by the maritime safety committee in May this year. It is too early to anticipate the detailed provisions of the code, but it is intended that it will place voluntary restrictions on tankers operating in sensitive areas including the Fair Isle strait, the Isles of Scilly, the Minches and the Pentland Firth. We are still considering what other measures might be taken.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will welcome what the Minister said. I congratulate the Government very firmly on the action which has been taken as an interim measure pending wider international agreement. But will the Minister answer this: is there not an urgent need, made more so by falling standards among ships sailing the international seas, to restore higher standards and to resuscitate the British fleet and British seamanship, which stand for higher standards? What are the Government doing in that respect, bearing in mind that defects in foreign ships visiting Britain which have been inspected have trebled over the past five years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his initial remarks. It is more than just a question of maintaining the high standards which we have in the United Kingdom. What we have been pressing for, particularly through our presidency of Europe in the past six months—and we shall continue to do so—is to improve the standards both of vessels and crews throughout the world. Shipping is a very international business. Unless we raise standards throughout the world, which is what we are trying to do, we shall not achieve the success which we are aiming for.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while one rejoices to hear the news in my noble friend's
344
original Answer, can he say something about the methods of enforcement and what chances they have of being effective?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is one of the difficulties with the present situation. Although these are United Kingdom territorial waters there are also international rights of passage through those waters, agreed by Parliament and registered in the United Nations and at the IMO. Therefore, monitoring the codes is extremely difficult. That is why it is important to get the agreement of all the participants or as many of them as possible. There are about 3,000 tankers in the world and about 2,300 owners. It is very difficult to get an effective code on a voluntary basis. That is why there are these interim measures. We await the full report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I also welcome what the noble Earl said. As regards policing the code, surely an important part of that is to identify the offenders. Can the Minister say what are the chances of ensuring that some radar provision is made in these narrow waters so that the offenders can be identified when they are breaking the code?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question concerns not only radar, which is but a small part of the problem. As regards the identification of ships, that is under discussion with the IMO. These are voluntary codes. We have no mandatory right under international law to monitor the shipping. The system relies on the good will of all the parties and that is why it is important to get the agreement of all the organisations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the tanker was registered in Liberia which, I believe, it never visited? Have the Liberian Government taken any part in the discussions and if not, should not consideration be given to tankers being registered only with responsible countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Liberian registry is in fact run from New York and not from Liberia. It is also run by a Scot. The Liberian record for accidents is below the world average.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, according to information I received this morning, no payments have yet been made from the bridging fund set up for the purpose of helping the inshore fishermen and salmon farmers who have suffered severe financial loss as a result of the disaster? Can the noble Earl say when the bottleneck is going to be overcome so that these unfortunate fishermen can receive the interim compensation which they deserve?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is well wide of that on the Order Paper, but it is an important point. Work is being undertaken at this precise moment to try to ease the bottleneck.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble friend say how successful has been the use of the Frogmat and the Vikoma system in disposing of the oil in the particular event which is the subject of the Question?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again I believe that that question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. It was the sheer, raw power of nature —the power of the sea—that dispersed the oil. Certain man-made provisions such as the matting and the dispersants certainly helped.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the welcome voluntary code will include two matters which do not need to wait for the inquiries: first, that such vessels in certain waters should have a secondary standby power unit; and, secondly, an anchor which is usable in bad weather?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the full terms of the code have yet to be decided. The principle was agreed this morning. My noble friend raises important points which I believe are wider than the code itself and which are much more suited for the inquiry to be held by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, at the risk of being told that my question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper, can the noble Earl say whether there is any information available now about possible contamination of the food chain as regards human beings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is considerable monitoring taking place. Besides the two inquiries into the shipping side of the matter, an ecology study undertaken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is continuing to monitor all the kinds of questions which the noble Baroness asks.

Social Security Benefits: Fraud
3.9 p.m.
Lord Benson Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the Answer given by Lord Henley on 18th January 1993 (Official Report, col. 718) concerning large losses suffered over a term of years by fraud in the Department of Social Security, whether improvements should be imposed in the financial administration of the department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the department constantly seeks ways of improving efficiency in the administration of social security. From April we plan to introduce new financial incentives to encourage local authorities to clamp down on housing benefit fraud. We shall make greater use of technology to weed out false claims, and allocate a further £10 million over each of the next three years to help the Benefits Agency step up its flight.
Lord Benson: My Lords, a few moments before the session began the noble Lord was kind enough to explain some of the difficulties facing the Department of Social Security. Can he help on this point: would it not have been possible to have introduced a better system of financial administration some years ago
346
which, on the department's own showing, would have saved a great sum of money which has drifted away because of fraud?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there always has been fraud and I suspect that there always will be an element of it in a social security system that costs Her Majesty's Government something of the order of £80 billion. We are determined to do as much as we possibly can to stamp out fraud. As I said in my original Answer, we have made considerable progress and will continue to look at various other improvements we can make. We have to be aware that while wanting to clamp down on fraud, it is necessary that we have a benefits system that is accessible to those who have genuine claims. We would not want to go so far as to deny benefit to those who have a legal entitlement.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if a workfare scheme were introduced, that would help to cut down the amount of fraud in social security benefit payments?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would rather not speculate on the subject of workfare. As my noble friend said earlier in some of his responses, it goes somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we welcome the tone of the Minister's reply to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Benson. It was helpful. We on this side of the House certainly condemn fraud; it is clearly intolerable. However, does the Minister accept the recent findings of the National Audit Office that some 30 per cent. of sickness and maternity claims made by employers upon the DSS were found to contain monetary errors —that is, fraud—because the employer either claimed excessive sums or kept the payments that had been claimed and failed to pass them on to staff? I repeat that that happened in some 30 per cent. of cases. Will the Minister please crack down on employer fraud which plunders the taxpayer and denies sick and pregnant staff their financial rights?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that there was some criticism of the department in the National Audit Office report. I would not like to comment in any detail on that in advance of my department appearing before the Public Accounts Committee. But the noble Baroness should, I think, have pointed out that the Comptroller and Auditor General did recognise that the department had already made considerable improvements and was working hard to improve oversight of the statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay schemes. As regards the 30 per cent. error rates that the noble Baroness alleges, those error rates are not in fact representative. Checks were focused by my department—not by the NAO —on the employers considered more likely to make mistakes.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I welcome the fact that he evaded the question about workfare? However, now that it has been raised, will he tell the Prime Minister that,

347
notwithstanding the support shown for the idea in this House, there would be very strong resistance if he tried to bring in any possible system involving cheap labour?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made any remarks about workfare. What my right honourable friend was talking about was keeping those who are unemployed and the long-term unemployed in touch with the labour market. We already have considerable schemes within social security to do just that.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, now that the Minister has answered a question which is wide of that on the Order Paper, will he say how many times income tax fraud and other taxation frauds are in excess of the particular fraud which is referred to on the Order Paper? Is it 100 times or 1,000 times? How many times?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is completely and utterly wide of the Question on the Order Paper, as was the question asked by the noble Lord's noble friend on the previous occasion when I dealt with questions about fraud. As I said on that occasion, Her Majesty's Government will continue to clamp down on fraud whether it be in the social security system or in taxation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the best way of keeping the unemployed in touch with the labour market is to adopt economic and social policies that give them jobs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is now going completely and utterly wide of the Question.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I support the Minister's resolution to clamp down on fraud wherever it may occur, but will the Government bear in mind that the incidence of fraud depends to some extent on the social climate within the country as a whole and that, generally speaking, fraud is the only growth industry at the moment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject the remarks of the noble Lord, but I certainly accept what he said about the social climate of the country. The only way we can win the battle against fraud is if we have the support of everyone in the country and if they let us know who is claiming benefits illegally.

Pensions: UK Citizens in Finland
3.14 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the recent conclusion of a reciprocal social security agreement with Finland, the retirement pensions of retired UK citizens living in Finland will be index linked.
Lord Henley: My Lords, United Kingdom retirement pensions paid in Finland have been index linked since 1984.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, although I am well aware of that point, I am grateful for the Minister's Answer because it confirms what I thought. When I read that an agreement had been concluded, I wondered how it differed from the 1983–84 agreement, which is in existence. However, if I may go on from that, can the Minister confirm that we have similar arrangements with 30 other countries including the United States of America, Israel and even Yugoslavia—we still have an agreement with Yugoslavia—Portugal, Switzerland and so on? Can the Minister also tell me the different principles that apply to negotiations with countries such as Finland and so on compared with those applying to our kith and kin in countries such as Canada and Australia?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord was well aware of the Answer, I wonder why he put the Question down on the Order Paper. The noble Lord again knows perfectly well what my answer will be and what my answer must be, because the noble Lord has asked this Question on a number of occasions. We have made a certain number of arrangements with other countries. We made them a number of years ago. As I said, the arrangements with Finland were made in 1984 following a commitment made as early as 1977. In the current climate, I do not think that it will be possible to increase fully or to give annual upratings to those claiming pensions in Canada for the reasons that I have given on earlier occasions to the noble Lord. Quite simply, it is a matter of cost. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to make very difficult judgments about where to spend the resources that are available for social security. To increase all pensions worldwide would cost some £275 million. Quite honestly, my right honourable friend feels that there are others who have a higher priority.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I have heard that reply for 20 years now? It is always similar except that the figures vary, sometimes higher, sometimes lower. There has been no change in the basic reply. I am still asking what principles are different. What is the principle of negotiation which differs between Finland and Canada?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is a straightforward principle—one of cost. My right honourable friend has to make very difficult decisions. When the commitment was given to Finland in 1977, there were some 11 old age pensioners residing in Finland and the annual cost was going to be £3,000. There are at the moment—if we take just Canada as an example—some 110,000 pensioners and the annual cost of giving them the full uprating would be some £70 million. My right honourable friend, as I said, has to make very difficult decisions about priorities.

The Highland Midge
3.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are giving further consideration to the useful service which could be provided by red mites in reducing the numbers of Highland midges, in the light of information now received by the Government from the Natural History Museum and other authoritative sources.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, we have received further information from the Natural History Museum and from Professor Angus Stuart, formerly Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle. Contrary to what I indicated on an earlier occasion, it is clear that there are indeed mites parasitic to midges; but in the current state of research, there remains doubt over their potential to control midge numbers. I understand that it is not in the interests of a parasite to weaken the host to the point of death. Accordingly, we have no present plans to try to develop a midge-control programme on this basis.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for his full Answer, since he cast doubt on the very existence of the red mite when I raised the subject a few weeks ago. Has he received some much enlarged photographs of the mite effectively in action? Does he agree that promising methods of suppressing this ferocious nuisance deserve encouragement? Has he seen the recent research revealing that Queen Victoria, contrary to her usual directions, permitted smoking at Balmoral in order to repel the midges?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no, I was unaware of that last piece of research. I do not retreat entirely from what I said on an earlier occasion. We still believe that the dreaded Natterer's bat has no contribution to make toward midge control. I am chastened by the fact that the research undertaken by Professor Stuart and others was ignored when I answered this matter previously. However, I understand that on "Tomorrow's World" last night there was an item which indicated that there was a midge fossilised in clear resin with a parasite mite still attached to it from some 70 million years ago. If over that extended period that parasitic mite has been unable to bring to an end the primitive midge, I fear that it is unlikely that any success against the ferocious Highland midge will be achieved during your Lordships' lifetimes.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, while the Minister may have been forced to bowl out the bats and the mites which his noble friend has suggested may be a possible remedy for midges, perhaps I may ask this question. Will he consider congratulating his noble friend on his noble effort to cure what is one of the worst scourges of the north of Scotland? If mites will not do and bats will not do, he should by all means keep at it until we find something that will do.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we are not idle in this matter. Projects are under way in the Department of Zoology at the University of Aberdeen and the Institute of Animal Health. The first seeks to identify the pheromones involved in the mating behaviour of midges, and the potential for their use in traps. I undertake to report any success to the House.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he should advise his noble friend that every time he asks this Question it is costly for the Scottish economy? If it is publicised, that ensures that fewer and fewer Sassenachs will go on the Scottish salmon rivers to fish, because they will be driven away by the midges?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we appreciate that there is a delicate balance to be achieved. Despite all that, I still enjoin the noble Lord and his noble friends to visit Scotland as tourists as often as they wish to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it not a form of biological warfare?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend disagree with the comment that I recently heard that this subject has perhaps gone a mite too far?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, from where I stand, certainly!
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether he has ever been bitten by a Highland midge? If he never has been bitten by a Highland midge, in pursuance of his ministerial duties will he take time to go to the Highlands and let these midges have a good feed? He could then return much better informed about this important and serious subject.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I told the House on an earlier occasion, it is the pregnant female midge which is responsible for all the damage. I am all too familiar with her bite. I am aware that it can be extremely unpleasant. Notwithstanding that, I am still confident that those who know anything of the beauty and the scenery of the Highlands of Scotland will continue to visit them despite this pest.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on his persistence. The last time he asked the Question was only four months ago. From what the Minister has today said, we have made enormous strides during that four months. Leaving aside the 70 million years, if the noble Lord puts Questions down at four-monthly intervals that may speed up the process at Aberdeen and the Scottish Office.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure that I shall be able to carry out any further research into this vexed issue within a further four months. If there is any progress, I shall be happy to report it to the House.

Business
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on national roads investment plans 1992–94 that is to be made in another place.

Spring Bank Holiday Recess
I am aware that your Lordships have full schedules and that advanced notice of the parliamentary timetable may assist your Lordships in planning. I hope that it is not therefore premature for me to indicate that, subject to the progress of business, it is expected that the spring bank holiday Recess will begin on Friday 28th May and that the House will return on Monday 7th June.

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Chairman of Committees in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Duty to issue guidelines]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 31, after ("issue") insert ("and publish").
The noble Lord said: All Welshmen talk too much!
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I stressed the importance of publishing the board's productions when speaking to Amendment No. 10. What I said there, applies here. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I shall respond as briefly as I can. There is something in the noble Lord's first amendment, but nothing in the second. The difficulty is that the first amendment would have to be reconsidered to ensure that it is correctly framed. I shall accept his amendment in principle if I can take it away and look at it more carefully.
Amendment No. 24 would be counterproductive as it is currently drafted. Its effect would be to allow the board to issue or publish guidelines without the Secretary of State's approval since it would restrict the need for his approval to where issuing and publishing happen together. Quite apart from that undesirable effect, it seems to me to be unnecessary. I shall accept in principle Amendment No. 23.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about Amendment No. 23.
352
I note what he says about Amendment No. 24. We shall go away and reconsider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert:
("() The Board shall exercise its powers under this section so that the guidelines contain such practical guidance as the Board thinks fit for promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language including guidance on the following matters—

(a) the need to ensure that when communicating orally or in writing with any person resident in Wales, the language used, whether English or Welsh as the case may be, complies with the requirements of that person;

(b) the status of the Welsh language generally;

(c) the use of the Welsh language in the conduct of the business of the body;

(d) the criteria for the employment of bilingual staff;

(e) the arrangements for enabling staff employed by the body to receive tuition and achieve proficiency in the Welsh language;

(f) the monitoring and reviewing on a regular basis the scheme and its implementation;

(g) a complaints procedure.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to insert into the Bill general criteria to which the board should have regard when designing the draft statutory guidelines. The inclusion of the criteria in the Bill would have a number of advantages for the statutory board. First, the criteria would mean that the board would have clear guidance from Parliament as to the range of matters which should be detailed and defined in the guidelines.
Secondly, it follows that if the draft guidelines were within the criteria, that would avoid the possibility that at a later stage, when submitted to Parliament for approval, they would be challenged successfully on the grounds that they were going beyond what was necessary. If that were to happen, the board would have to go through the whole procedure once again of drafting and consultation, and that would be time-consuming. People in Wales are anxious that the guidelines should be approved by Parliament at an early date.
Thirdly, the Welsh Language Board has by now had about three years' experience of developing and applying voluntary guidelines. I feel sure that it knows by now the core elements that should be included in the guidelines. That point was touched upon by the Minister on Second Reading. As the core elements have been identified, they should be included in primary legislation. That would enhance the legitimacy of the guidelines.
Finally, there is another reason why we on these Benches believe that at least the principle of the amendment should be accepted. That is an important reason. One must never overlook the all-important point that the status of the guidelines, or of individual provisions of the guidelines, may well one day be challenged in the cold, analytical climate of the courts. If the guidelines came under examination in the courts, we believe that it would be important for the core elements to be given specific authority in the primary legislation.
I urge the Committee to accept the principle of the amendment. Once again, I am not wedded to the criteria which are set out in the amendment, but perhaps I may be allowed to mention that, apart from the inclusion of the complaints procedure—that is paragraph (g)—the criteria represent an attempt by me to summarise the main issues which are addressed in the board's voluntary guidelines for the public sector. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I rise to support the content of the amendment because I believe that it is an excellent attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to set out on the face of the Bill what many of us hope will be in the guidelines as laid down by the board.
In our earlier Committee deliberations and on Second Reading I made it clear that I accept the logic of the Bill as it stands; namely, that we have enunciated the general principle of treating both languages on a basis of equality. I feel strongly that the board should be seen to be a powerful instrument of that equality by ensuring that, in producing its schemes, it will be able to be effective in planning for the extension of Welsh within the public sector. On that basis this amendment sets out the principles under which the guidelines for schemes should operate. If the Minister is unable to accept the amendment as it stands, I hope that at least he will be able to tell us that that is the Government's intention.
I should draw attention in particular to the relationship between this amendment and the work already undertaken by the non-statutory board. The non-statutory board has been able to go a long way down the road of indicating to public authorities and also, in an advisory capacity which applies to other parts of the Bill, to non-public authorities what kind of schemes may be required in order to implement the principle of equality.
The amendment emphasises the use of the language and the employment criteria enabling tuition and proficiency. That is a very important area of training which will enable employees and public authorities to acquire the use of Welsh and become fluent in it. It also emphasises the need for a clear complaints procedure.
I am anxious that the board should be seen to be not only a promotional agency but also a conciliation agency. Where there is conflict about the implementation of bilingual policy or equality, the board should be able to undertake an active role of conciliation. The effectiveness of a complaints procedure will signal to people in Wales, whichever language they speak as their first language, that they will be able to turn to the board as an agency to resolve any conflict about the implementation of the policies.
For those reasons, I am pleased to support the content of the amendment. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will assure us that he expects the board to follow that direction when it sets out the guidelines for the schemes. To me the combination of the specific schemes negotiated between the board and public bodies and the general principle is the strength
354
of the Bill. However, both the general principle of the treatment of languages on the basis of equality and the specific content of schemes need to be equally strong if the Bill is to be effective. Without effective schemes, the Bill will be inadequate.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and what he is trying to achieve. The Welsh Language Board's guidelines will be crucial to the success of this legislation. The Bill establishes a clear principle which the Government intend should be the foundation of Welsh language services in the public sector. One of the board's key roles will be to offer guidance as to how this principle can be given practical effect. The guidelines will be central, both in illustrating the practical measure which should be contained in the schemes and in ensuring that the principle of equality is interpreted consistently across the public sector as a whole.
On reading the Bill, my own reaction was that I too could not see, in any great detail, what it was that the guidelines were to contain. I have no doubt that that is what lies behind the amendment. In part, this does of course reflect the fact that the guidelines are the board's responsibility. It must be right therefore that if the board is to undertake this task, the Bill should not attempt to do it for it. The more the Bill does that, the less discretion the board has in determining what the guidelines should contain.
That does not, however, mean that the Bill says nothing about the contents of the guidelines. The guidelines must be such as to ensure that public bodies are able to' give effect to the principle that the Welsh and English languages should be dealt with on a basis of equality. The purpose and underlying aim of the guidelines, therefore, is clear. It is this on which the Bill should concentrate and not the detailed content. I am sure that we could spend many hours discussing matters which are worthy of inclusion in the guidelines. I do not believe that that would be suitable. Parliament has to ensure that the Bill provides the board with a clear legal framework in which to operate. Having established that framework, we should allow the board to attend to matters of detail and to the practical issues on which its expertise will, in due course, become even greater than—dare I say it?—that which is available in this Committee today.
I am encouraged in that by the Bill's provisions which ensure that the guidelines are subject to public scrutiny. They will be the subject of extensive consultation. They will need to be approved by the Secretary of State and will then need to be laid before and approved by Parliament.
Through the Bill, Parliament will require the board to include in the guidelines all services which are provided by public bodies, because the schemes will cover all the matters. That is different from the current guidelines. In future they will have to give effect to the principle of equality, which is a new principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is anxious about the legal uncertainty of the guidelines. The uncertainty would be greater the more detail we tried to specify on the face of the Bill. It would raise a question as to whether the points which have not been detailed in the Bill could be included in the guidelines.

355
Once one says what must be included in the guidelines, it implies that that which is not listed should not or need not be included. I believe that it is best to leave such matters to the board.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Will he spell out to me in slightly greater detail the point he has just made; namely, that the schemes would give effect to the principle of equality and that that is a new departure in the Bill compared with the existing guidelines of the non-statutory board?
I believe that this is a very important relationship between the first principle of the Bill—the treatment of languages on the basis of equality—and the content of the schemes and the guidelines. If the Minister could spell that out, he would go some way towards enlightening people outside the Committee as to the real powers vested in the board by the Bill and the likely effect of specific schemes.
Earl Ferrers: One starts with the whole principle of the Bill which is to encourage the use of the Welsh language, to preserve it and enhance it. In order to achieve that there will be a statutory board which will lay down guidelines for public bodies. Those public bodies will base their schemes upon those guidelines. That is a statutory duty on both the board and the public bodies.
I understand the anxiety of some Members of the Committee to know exactly what will be in the guidelines. However, this Bill states exactly what the board's statutory requirements are. It is then up to the board to decide how, through its guidelines, to put those statutory requirements into practice. Once the guidelines have been produced, each public body will have to make its own scheme in accordance with those guidelines. I cannot go further in saying what the guidelines should be because that will be for the board to determine.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for supporting this amendment. I am sorry that the Minister has resisted the principle of the amendment. I fear that the Minister and the Government may be underestimating the extent to which these guidelines may come under attack in future. The guidelines are the key to the Bill. They are crucial to the Bill. The suggested criteria are not detailed criteria at all. I have grouped under five headings about 21 guidelines to be set out in the board's voluntary guidelines. I will not detain the Committee as we have further business. However, I take note of what the Minister says. I am disappointed with his response and we shall have to consider whether it is appropriate to return to this amendment or to an amendment along these lines. But, having said that, it seems to me that if the Minister is afraid of details, we might perhaps consider accepting the first subsection of my amendment, which states:
"The Board shall exercise its powers under this section so that the guidelines contain such practical guidance as the Board thinks fit for promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language".
If that wording were included in the Bill, it would at least tell us something about the board's authority to
356
design the guidelines and to decide what matters they contain. Would the Minister respond to that before I decide precisely where to go with it?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is like the serpent and is very beguiling. He has asked me to accept the first few words of his amendment. When I considered the amendment I considered what one might describe as the whole panjandrum and it was that which was not acceptable. In looking at the first few lines it would appear to me, speaking off the cuff —that is a dangerous thing to do—not to have great disadvantages. However, whether it would be appropriate to include it in the Bill is a matter that I should prefer to consider rather than give an immediate response.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for that grain of comfort. I, too, will reflect upon the Minister's comments. I shall decide whether or not it is appropriate to return with this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert:
("() The Board and the Secretary of State shall each take such steps as they consider necessary to encourage public bodies to adopt the policies and practices recommended in the guidelines.").
The noble Lord said: It would be helpful if the Bill confirmed that the Secretary of State himself has a continuing duty to promote the Welsh language and the objects of the Bill. Accordingly, this amendment places a responsibility on the Secretary of State to promote the Welsh language. As this important Bill stands, the powers are in the hands of the Secretary of State. I should have thought the corollary of that was that the Secretary of State should have a public responsibility to promote the Welsh language. He should not have power without public responsibility for promoting the objectives of the Bill. That is what we seek to embody in the legislation by means of this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: It is certainly the Government's intention that public bodies should have close regard to the guidelines across all the services that they provide. That is clearly and forcefully taken care of in the Bill. There is no need to have a separate power to encourage bodies to comply with the guidelines. They are already required to produce schemes and therefore they must be complying. Schemes must comply with the purpose as defined in the Bill. In doing so they must have regard to the guidelines. I believe the noble Lord said the Secretary of State should not have power without also having public responsibility. However, he has public responsibility. The guidelines will be produced by the board and they will be given to the Secretary of State. He has to approve them and he then has to bring them to Parliament. As such he has that public responsibility. When Parliament approves those guidelines submitted to it by the Secretary of State, Parliament will endorse the Secretary of State's power.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should have thought in general the Bill places the responsibilities on the board and not on the Secretary of State. A great deal of power has been vested in the Secretary of State and we were particularly anxious that it should be clear that the Secretary of State still has a pro-active role to play in promoting the Welsh language. He cannot disengage from that merely because the Welsh Language Board is in existence. That was the point I was trying to make.
Earl Ferrers: I hope I can help the noble Lord. I do not think the Secretary of State will be negating his responsibilities. Later in the Bill it can be seen that, if a public body does not put forward schemes, the board can tell that public body to put forward schemes. If the public body still does not do so, the board can approach the Secretary of State and he can make that public body implement schemes which the Secretary of State himself will formulate. At the end of the road the Secretary of State has that power but the whole principle behind this Bill is to shift the onus on to the Welsh Language Board as that board will have responsibility and knowledge and it will implement the scheme. However, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State has responsibility.
Lord Prys-Davies: I welcome the reassuring words of the Minister. However, I respectfully differ from him in one respect. I believe that the continuing duty should have been incorporated in the Bill. However, that is another matter which we shall have to consider further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Approval of guidelines]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 27, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30. Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 reform Clause 9(3) and Amendment No. 30 proposes a new procedure in what is, I believe, very much the same spirit. Clause 9(3) would, in our opinion, be considerably improved if it read:
"After considering the Board's report and the draft guidelines the Secretary of State shall within the period of 40 days from receiving a copy of the draft approve the draft or, if he does not approve it, publish details of his reasons".
In our view that would introduce a note of brisk, businesslike efficiency, which is strangely lacking in the present formulation. It would also encourage a more open and public discussion of any disagreement, which would be very much in accord with the principle of open government wherever open government, so often espoused by the present Administration, is possible.
We prefer "shall" to "may" because it makes clearer sense. The Secretary of State has to do something about the guidelines and the Bill seems to say very little about what he must do if he does not approve the draft.
We suggest a period of 40 days as being sufficient and not too much. Your Lordships may recall that in the Old Testament the Children of Israel were frequently instructed that 40 days was a long time. In our view it would encourage the Secretary of State to be expeditious in his consideration. It also matches the 40-day period in Clause 9(6).
We propose that the Secretary of State should publish the reason for his disapproval so that there can be a wide-ranging debate on such matters of disagreement as may from time to time arise. Such a debate, if openly conducted, could conceivably produce an acceptable solution which had not occurred to people until the debate took place. If it did not, we hope that the requirement introduced by Amendment No. 30 would oblige the Secretary of State, in effect, to be locked up in a room in the Welsh Office with the Welsh Language Board, no one to be let out until they had come to an agreement.
We would be profoundly unimpressed if a situation were allowed to arise in which the Secretary of State unilaterally amended the draft guidelines and then laid before Parliament a set of guidelines in which the board itself manifestly had no confidence. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, is very apprehensive. I believe that I can allay his anxiety. First, however, I must point out that his amendment would require the Secretary of State to agree the nature of any amendments which he might wish to make with the Welsh Language Board. The guidelines which will come before Parliament for approval will, of course, be the guidelines prepared by the board, but it will be the Secretary of State who is responsible for what is put to Parliament.
Before he puts those guidelines to Parliament, the Secretary of State will consider them. He may wish to amend the guidelines. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, suggests that in that event the Secretary of State will produce guidelines which are thought to be the board's guidelines but which are not. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 9(4) he will see that,
"The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any draft guidelines received by him from the Board, with any amendments made by him under subsection (3) above".
Therefore, Parliament will see the draft guidelines which the board will have proposed to my right honourable friend. It will also see my right honourable friend's amendments. It will then be for Parliament to decide. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord's anxiety is misplaced.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that clarification. As I read Clause 9(4) I believe that it could be taken quite legitimately to mean what I understood it to mean. If I interpret the noble Earl correctly, he means that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any draft guidelines received by him from the board, together with any amendments made by him under subsection (3).
As it stands the subsection could be read as meaning that the draft guidelines as submitted to Parliament would simply include any amendments, which would not be identified separately. If I am

359
wrong about that, or if the noble Earl would like to consider the matter further between now and the later stages of the Bill, I should be quite content to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has shone a shaft of light on to a possible interpretation that I had not seen. I see now how the noble Lord may have construed that provision. It is my inclination to believe that my interpretation is correct and that Parliament will see both the draft guidelines and the amendments which the Secretary of State will have proposed. If that is so it will be the Secretary of State's responsibility and they will be the Secretary of State's guidelines. However, I shall make quite certain that the interpretation that I have translated to your Lordships is correct.
Lord Prys-Davies: This is an important point. It is our understanding of the clause that there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State substituting his own guidelines for those of the board. Is the Minister saying that when the Order in Council comes before the Houses of Parliament we shall have both the Secretary of State's version and the board's version and that Parliament will decide between the two? Surely that is not the case. What will be presented to Parliament for approval will be the guidelines as approved by the Secretary of State, which means that he could substitute his own guidelines for those of the board. It seems to us that the Secretary of State should not expect a reluctant board to prosecute his policy.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that there would be no question of that. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has thrown light on an area which I had not realised contained even a vestige of a shadow. However, I can see that there is disquiet and perhaps I can look at the matter again before the next stage.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Revision of guidelines]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 21, leave out ("five") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 31 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. Amendment No. 31 is a probing amendment designed to give the Government an opportunity, if they feel so inclined, to explain in greater detail their reasons for proposing that the guidelines shall be set in concrete for a period of not less than half a decade.
It seems to us likely, especially in the early stages of the operation of the legislation when it becomes an Act, that all manner of unforeseen eventualities may arise which suggest that it would be sensible to alter the guidelines. Suppose, for example, that the guidelines included a provision on the lines of the one we proposed in Amendment No. 25 relating to communicating orally or in writing and that hitherto
360
unsuspected developments in information technology made it important to include reference to machine-readable forms or electronic mail or something of that sort. Why should the board's hands be tied for a period as long as five years?
A long time ago a famous cartoon appeared in Punch which showed two examiners walking through a wood in spring. One examiner quoted Wordsworth's lines:
"O cuckoo! Shall I call thee bird,
Or but a wandering voice?"
The second examiner added, "state alternative preferred. Give reasons for your choice." I invite the noble Earl to give reasons for his choice of five years.
In relation to Amendment No. 32, although every responsible public body will keep its schemes constantly under review, we believe that the duty to review a scheme every five years should be placed formally on each public body and appear on the face of the Bill for two main reasons. First, a large and complex public body such as, for example, a county council or health authority, might, because it has so much to do and especially if it has a good scheme which operates successfully, lose sight of the necessity to review its scheme. If the amendment appeared on the face of the Bill it would act as a reminder to a large and complex body of its duty, and that would be beneficial.
Secondly, in matters of linguistic change, developments take place constantly. Languages do not stand still. For example, one new Welsh medium school in any area which has not previously had one, can, within five years, change the whole pattern of language usage in that area. A local health authority or a fire authority might not necessarily register that change sensitively. In our view every five years it would need to take stock and simply palpate the processes of change. We propose five years because we believe that the review should be serious and substantial. Five years is a long enough time.
Amendment No. 33 speaks for itself, and simply requires that the board may ask a public body to give information on the review which it may from time to time need. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: Clause 10 represents one of the important points of flexibility in the Bill. The Government's intention is that the framework it provides should be able to evolve just as the use of the language evolves and that this Bill should therefore be able to stand the test of time. The essential feature of this evolution is that the board can determine, from time to time, that it would be appropriate for it to amend the guidelines.
It would, however, be a mistake to see this procedure being entered into lightly or indeed too frequently. Although a language is continually subject to change, the evolution we have in mind is one which takes place over decades and generations. Welsh language schemes must be responsive to change, but will not require wholesale overhaul according to the sort of timetable envisaged in this amendment.

361
The Government felt that it was reasonable to stipulate five years as the minimum period after which the board could initiate its first general review of schemes. I believe the Bill has it about right. The important decision will, of course, be that of the board once it is in place and once it can take its own view on these matters.
I would, however, draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the time period mentioned in subsection (2) relates only to the board's first review of its guidelines. Thereafter the frequency with which they should be reviewed will be entirely at the discretion of the board. It would, I believe, be a mistake to conclude from this that the board will wish to review its guidelines every five years. The important thing is that it will be for the board to decide.
On Amendment No. 32, at Second Reading my noble friend stated that one of the important features of the Bill is that the schemes to which it will give rise,
"will not be cast in tablets of stone".—[Official Report, 19/1/93; col. 837.]
It is essential that we provide this flexibility not only to reflect the evolution of the language over long periods of time but also to enable public bodies and their schemes to respond to changing circumstances. Clause 15 provides for schemes to be amended to reflect any change in circumstances of particular public bodies. Such a revision can be proposed by the board or by the public body concerned. The public body will have an incentive to do so in order to ensure that its scheme does not refer to services for which it is perhaps no longer responsible. The board will be able to propose amendments so long as it is satisfied that there has been a change to the function or circumstances of the public body which makes this appropriate.
In Clause 14 the Bill also provides for there to be a more general review of schemes as a result of the board having revised its guidelines. Whether there is a need to amend schemes will of course depend upon the circumstances of individual public bodies. Before requiring schemes to be revised, therefore, the board can require a public body to conduct a review and to submit to it a statement of its conclusions. The ability to require such a review ensures that new schemes are introduced only where there is absolute necessity.
I am sure we are all agreed that we would not require schemes to be changed when that is not necessary. The main thrust of the amendments therefore is already taken care of in the Government's Bill. It is important not to impose too much bureaucracy on those organisations such as would be involved if every five years every single body were to review its scheme.
There is also the practical difficulty of what a review comprises. Does it involve taking a scheme out of a drawer and putting it back again? What is the penalty if that ritual dance has not been gone through? Who knows whether or not it has?
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation and defence of Clause 10(2). However, it does not meet our anxiety. I agree with the noble Viscount that we do not want the scheme to be
362
amended unless it is necessary. But it is always my experience that the difficult task is to draft the initial document. One drafts the initial document, considers it and sees that mistakes have occurred. Let us assume that the board realises after year one that there has been a mistake in the guidelines. As the clause stands, it can do nothing about that for five years. We say that where the mistake occurs in the original drafting—that is where it usually occurs—the board ought to be able to come back within two years to put it right. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Baroness White: I hope that the matter will be reconsidered by the Government. I anticipate that there will be a preliminary period before those guidelines are issued. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. Then one has to wait five years before one can alter them. That is how I read the Bill; I may be wrong. That is too long a period when one is experimenting, as one will be in the first period. I hope that the matter may be reconsidered.
Viscount St. Davids: In the first five-year period the board will need to have a considerable amount of experience under its belt. It would be unduly cumbersome if a shorter period of time were imposed. The board will have to cope with a considerable number of diverse companies and organisations. If we were to reduce the length of time to the proposed two years, it would then put the board under other pressures which would be detrimental to the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: The Minister has not answered the question. If within 18 months the board sees that there is a mistake in the guidelines, is the Minister saying that it has to wait five years before it can be corrected?
Viscount St. Davids: No, I do not say that. The board can propose amendments to schemes at any time.
Lord Geraint: Perhaps I may ask one question of the Minister. Members of the board may be satisfied with the guidelines within the first five years. The Secretary of State may be satisfied with the guidelines. But if the majority of the people of Wales are not satisfied with the guidelines, what is the next option?
Viscount St. Davids: It is the board's responsibility to get the matter right. I cannot imagine that the type of board that the Bill envisages will create what would be a major nonsense.
Lord Prys-Davies: Does it help the Minister if we make the suggestion that the board should be entitled to revise the guidelines within five years at its discretion? That provision would help us to get round this difficulty.
Viscount St. Davids: Following the remarks that have been expressed on the amendment, we will take it away and return in due course.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said. His view about the speed at which languages change and develop is

363
not totally in accord with my brief experience of it. Languages develop much faster in certain cases than he imagines. He believes that the Bill has got it just about right; we on these Benches believe that on this matter the Bill has got it just about wrong.
I take the point which the noble Viscount makes about the first and subsequent reviews, and I am grateful for the clarification. We thought that Clauses 14 and 15 were not specifically precise and did not impose the kind of discipline that we had in mind. We were concerned about the duty and discipline of review rather than the more swinging 'sixties, permissive view that Clauses 14 and 15 appeared to have in mind. Once again, I am grateful for the clarification.
The noble Viscount mentioned the idea of a review as being some kind of ritual dance which could be indulged in, presumably annually at eisteddfodau and other meetings of the clan. He asked what would happen if a county council, for example, simply took its review out of the drawer, had a look at it, turned it upsidedown, shook out the dust and put it back. What penalty would there be if it did that and nothing else? Who would know whether it had revised the scheme?
I remind the noble Viscount that there are countless Acts on the statute book which impose the duty of review on one body or another. The same would apply there as applies here. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest that that is the Government's's problem, not ours. However, I am grateful for what the noble Viscount said about taking the amendments away, and I shall think about it.
Lord Prys-Davies: The Minister did not reply to my noble friend's speech supporting Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. The point I wish to make about those amendments relates to an announcement made in another place on 27th February by the Secretary of State for Wales. He then said that the board would have the task of monitoring the implementation of the language schemes. I have seen no express reference in the Bill to the monitoring task.
In addition to the objectives which my noble friend outlined, Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 also seek to rectify that omission. Amendment No. 32 would require everyone to review the operation of the scheme every five years. Amendment No. 33 authorises the board to obtain information from the public bodies. Unless the Minister can assure us that the power to monitor and to obtain statistics is implied, then I ask the Government to think again about Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 before they reject them.
Viscount St. Davids: On the amendment, first, one could say that the board could not carry out its function unless part of that function was of a reviewing nature. Secondly, the public have the means of complaint to the board if the schemes are not carried out in the manner which is laid down.
Lord Prys-Davies: Concerning the second point, assuming that the board writes to a public body for certain statistics, does it have the power to ask the body for those statistics? I see no reference to that
364
power in the Bill. Secondly, if it has that implied power, what is the position if the public body refuses to comply?
Viscount St. Davids: The board is acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. The way I see it is that if an offender or potential offender did not comply with a request from the board, the Secretary of State could make the request himself.
Lord Prys-Davies: And thereafter?
Viscount St. Davids: If that fails, the Secretary of State can impose his own scheme.
Lord Prys-Davies: With great respect, we are not at the moment discussing the scheme, we are discussing the right of the board to obtain statistics from a public body. There is no specific authority in the Bill to enable the board to obtain that information. If Ministers confirm that it has an implied power to do so, and if the public body refuses to comply the board can ensure compliance, then I am satisfied. However, I am anxious that the board should he in a position to discharge its tasks. We believe that these amendments would buttress the board very much.
Viscount St. Davids: I am sure that the Bill enables the board to make these demands; but I shall go away and ensure that that is so.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Viscount and to my noble friend for having wrung out of the noble Viscount slightly more than I managed. In the light of the reassurances that he has given and his willingness to have another look at what has been a slightly sticky wicket for him, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: This may be a convenient moment to take the Statement on transport. Therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Road Improvements
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's plans for investment in national roads in 1993–94. I made a Statement to the House on 15th December about the Government's record level of support for expenditure on roads by local authorities. I am now pleased to be able to announce similar good news for the national road network of motorways and trunk roads.
"I am authorising the start of construction works in the coming financial year on 41 new road

365
schemes. Assuming the remaining statutory processes are completed, we will have started all these schemes by March next year. They represent new investment in the nation's infrastructure of over £1.3 billion. I am arranging for a list of the schemes to be included in the Official Report and made available in the Vote Office.
"Expenditure on new construction and maintenance of national roads will reach £2,092 million in 1993–94. This is the highest level for over 20 years in real terms, and one of the highest ever. In a difficult year for public expenditure, this level of spending clearly demonstrates the extent of the Government's commitment to capital expenditure and to investing in the nation's roads and, as we showed on Tuesday, rail infrastructure. The sum includes £550 million for the capital maintenance of roads and bridges and £1,369 million for new road construction.
"The 41 new starts are in addition to the substantial construction programme which is currently taking place. We have 51 schemes under construction, mostly started in the last couple of years. During the course of 1993–94 100 miles of new or improved roads will be opened to traffic.
"One aim of the programme is to tackle increasing congestion on the core motorway network: we will be adding a fourth lane to 18 route miles of motorway, including the M.25 in Surrey and the M.62 in Greater Manchester. The North-West will also see the start of construction on the long-awaited remaining link on the M.65 around Blackburn. The biggest single project to start will be the upgrading to motorway of 13 miles of the A.1 between Walshford and Dishforth in North Yorkshire, part of the A.1 motorway between London and Newcastle.
"Another key objective of the road programme is removing through traffic from our towns and villages. Nineteen bypass schemes will be built across the country, taking heavy traffic away from streets in towns and villages. In addition, on-line improvements will be started on 11 other routes, including the A.66 northern trans-Pennine road, the A.11 to Norwich, and the A.27 south coast route.

National roads: New starts for 1993–94

Region

Road number

Scheme name

Total works cost 1£ million

Miles

Northern

A.66

Stainmore—Banksgate

11

3·7

North West

M.62

Junctions 14–17 widening

13

2·5

North West

M.65

Blackburn southern bypass (Contract 1)

56

13·1

North West

A.6M—M.56 link (Central section)

16

2·2

Yorkshire and Humberside

A.1(M)

Walshford—Dishforth

113

13·1

Yorkshire and Humberside

A.65

Burley in Wharfedale bypass

9

1·8

Yorkshire and Humberside

A.65

Gargrave bypass

7

3·7

West Midlands

A.45

Stonebridge grade separated junction

12

1·3

West Midlands

A.50

Blythe bridge—Queensway (Phase 1)

73

3·0

West Midlands

A.435

Norton—Lenchwick bypass

24

7·5

"I am particularly pleased that we will now be able to start work next year in tackling some of the worst bottlenecks in London through a programme of nine junction improvements and other schemes. Taken in conjunction with the red routes network, which will also come on stream from 1994, this is a sensible, cost-effective and environmentally friendly response to congestion in the capital.
"All these 41 new schemes will bring substantial economic, safety and environmental benefits to road users and the country as a whole. They are particularly important in helping to reduce the costs of congestion to industry. The value of the benefits from these new schemes in terms of accidents avoided and time savings to road users has been assessed at £2.5 billion, and this is before any allowance for the net environmental gain achieved by reducing urban congestion and taking traffic away from town and village centres. All the new schemes have, of course, been subject to full environmental assessment and have been designed sensitively, so as to fit into the landscape as closely as possible. This is how we aim to minimise any adverse environmental effects; indeed, we can sometimes reduce the environmental effects of an existing road with a new scheme.
"The £550 million to be spent on capital maintenance is a 12 per cent. increase in real terms. I will be announcing the details of the maintenance works before the start of the new financial year, but can confirm now that sufficient funding will be in place in 1993–94 to avoid deteriorating road conditions, as well as ensuring that the programme of bridge strengthening remains on course. Higher expenditure on maintenance will also mean that the latest techniques of traffic management can be applied to minimise delays to the road user.
"The levels of investment I am announcing today will continue to meet the needs of business and the community and provide the right conditions for economic growth. In addition I shall be publishing a Green Paper on the basis for charging for the use of inter-urban roads which will also examine the scope for attracting more private finance."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Following is the list of schemes referred to in the Statement:

Region

Road number

Scheme name

Total works cost1£ million

Miles

East Midlands

A.17

Leadenham bypass

3

6·0

East Midlands

A.17

Wigtoft—Sutterton

7

3·0

East Midlands

A.52

Ashbourne relief road

4

1·6

Eastern

A.11

Besthorpe—Wymondham improvement

25

5·4

Eastern

A.11

Stump cross—Fourwentways improvement

28

3·4

Eastern

A.12

Lowestoft eastern relief road

1

0·8

Eastern

A.47

Walpole—Tilney High End bypass

23

6·2

Eastern

A. 140

Scole—Dickleburgh

12

1·3

Eastern

A.428

Bedford southern bypass

51

5·4

Eastern

M.40

Junction 1A-3 widening

55

7·5

London

A.12

Hackney—M.11 (Contract 2)

62

1·5

London

A.12

Hackney—M.11 (Contract 4)

60

0·9

London

A.13

Cotton street

8

0·6

London

A.13

Butcher row

1

0·1

London

A.13

Heathway—Thames avenue

54

5·0

London

A.13

Thames avenue—Wennington

58

3·1

London

A.40

Long lane—West End road widening

4

1·5

London

A.406

East of Falloden way

42

1·4

London

A.406

Dysons road

63

1·5

London

M.1

Junction 1

5

0·4

South East

A.27

Patching junction improvement

11

1·6

South East

A.249

North of Iwade—M.2 improvement

47

7·0

South East

A. 303

Bullington cross

4

2·5

South East

M.25

Junctions 10–11 widening

36

4·8

South East

M.25

Junctions 7–8 widening

32

3·1

South West

A.30

Shallowater hill

2

1·3

South West

A.30

Indian Queens, Fraddon, St. Columb road bypass

21

5·3

South West

A.31

Ashley heath grade separated junction

11

1·0

South West

A.46

Batheaston—Swainswick bypass

51

3·3

South West

A.417

Brockworth bypass

32

3·3

South West

M.5

Junction 18 improvement and Avonmouth relief road

13

1·0

TOTALS

41 Schemes

1,148

141·6

1 Including VAT.

4.22 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is a very full Statement and a very important one. Perhaps I may ask a number of questions. First, are we to take it from the Statement that all the money is to be provided by the Government or is some of it to come from local authorities? That is not made very clear. Secondly, is the Minister aware that there is still no sign from the Government of an integrated transport strategy? The policy is fragmented. It is heavily weighted in favour of roads. There is no indication as to how the Government propose to meet the sustainable transport objectives agreed at Rio when, despite their assertions, appalling under-investment remains so far as the public sector is concerned.
Can the Minister confirm that however the road building programme may be stepped up and obviously some increase is required, it cannot begin to meet the Government's own estimates of an increase in road traffic in the United Kingdom of between 83 per cent. and 140 per cent. by the year 2025; and in rural traffic of between 127 per cent. and 267 per cent. over the same timescale? Are those burdens not completely unsustainable?
How is the expenditure to be divided between construction and maintenance? There has been massive neglect-potholes all over the place will be the
368
experience of all noble Lords —making our roads more like those of a third world country than those of a country in modern Europe. Should not maintenance take far the greater share of the priorities accorded?
The Statement says that environmental impact assessments have been carried out. Are those wholly in conformity with the European Community directive, bearing in mind the fact that this country still faces litigation from the European Community in relation to Oxleas Wood and other projects associated with the Channel Tunnel?
While increased road spending will result in employment-I should like to hear the Minister's estimate of the growth—how does that contrast with the number of jobs currently and in the future being lost on the railways and other public transport modes? Is it not a fact that due to the 8 per cent. return required from British Rail's freight sector, customers are already moving from rail to road? Is not that move, estimated at something like 100,000 lorry loads and involving cider from Somerset, cement from Cornwall and chemicals from outside Cambridge, in conflict with the Government's assertions that they wish to encourage a move from road to rail? And that is just the beginning.
We have argued that a massive re-ordering of priorities in terms of public expenditure in the transport sector is required to enable a proper

369
transport strategy to evolve capable of meeting the environmental objectives set out at Rio and within the European Community and accepted by the Government. How does the Minister propose to go about achieving those objectives? Finally, does he recognise that planting trees on motorways does not represent a substitute for a transport policy which would properly integrate all the environmental considerations to which I have referred?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is difficult at short notice to disentangle the wheat from the chaff. I think it is true to say that so far as numbers are concerned, we are merely fleshing out the Autumn Statement. So often in government Statements these days we see the same amount of money coming before our eyes three or four times. So while some of what the Statement says is welcome, we should not go overboard as if suddenly £2,000 million has appeared from the Exchequer. It has not.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, one is glad to see jobs being created in the construction industry. We have all been calling for that for a long time. But what the Statement means in net terms remains to be seen. We are still in a position where the Government do not have a transport strategy: the Statement is no substitute. I remember not many years ago, when I asked whether the Government had a transport strategy, being told that the Government had a strategy for roads and British Rail had a strategy for rail. Now, there will be no British Rail to have a strategy for.
Some of the details in the Statement can be confusing. According to paragraph 4 there will be 100 miles of new or improved roads opened in 1993–94. But in paragraph 2 we are told:
"Assuming the remaining statutory processes are completed, we will have started all these schemes by March next year".
Are we talking about new roads or roads already under construction? The numbers can be extremely confusing.
The environmental consequences of some of the projects being started are rather worrying. The widening of the M.25 is being undertaken, it seems, without any reference to studies that might have been made of expansion at Heathrow. How far has that been integrated into the road programme? What increased volume of traffic do the Government anticipate as a result of the extra roads? We know perfectly well that traffic expands to fill the space available on the roads. It would be interesting to know whether the department has any idea of how many extra vehicles will be enticed on to the roads as a result of widening.
There is no doubt that parts of the A.1 are desperately in need of improvement. But it is noticeable that there are no improvements north of Newcastle. I am sure that some of our Scottish friends who look to the A.1 as part of their transport system will not be best pleased in that regard. Most of the investment, as usual, is in the South-East of England.
370
I notice that the value and benefits from the new schemes is assessed at £2.5 billion. I wonder how that was arrived at and by whom. The Statement says,
"before any allowance for the net environmental gain achieved by reducing urban congestion and taking traffic away from town and village centres".
It is not a reduction in environmental pollution; it is merely a shift. I am not saying that I oppose bypasses being built to take the congestion away from villages and towns. But let us not pretend that there is an enormous environmental gain. Overall there is not. In common with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I believe that the Government's pretence that landscaping is an answer shows insufficient understanding of the environmental problems caused by traffic.
Can the Minister say, in regard to paragraph 9, whether the programme of bridge strengthening includes the bridges in London? If so, how many more bridges will be closed and when? If we continue to close them on the scale that has occurred none of us will be able to get across to the south bank. Also, I was amused to see that the latest techniques of traffic management will be applied to minimise delays to road users. I understand that on Hammersmith Bridge that will be done by a man with a red flag.
I believe that there is a mistake in paragraph 10 where it says:
"In addition I shall be publishing a Green Paper on the basis for charging for the use of inter-urban roads".
I presume by that the Statement means "intra-urban roads". Are the Government considering road pricing between towns or in towns? As always, we have piecemeal policy on transport from the Government. It is about time that they woke up to the fact that it is not as simple as just widening a few motorways. It is a much broader problem.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think I can thank both noble Lords for their welcome to the Statement, although both asked a number of questions which I shall try to answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether the money was government money or local authority money. Of course it is government money. We are talking of trunk roads and motorways which are not local authority concerns. They are the concerns of the Department of Transport; so it is government money. On 15th December we announced the programme for local authorities.
With regard to whether or not the investment that we are carrying out is heavily weighted in favour of roads, as the noble Lord suggested, I would take issue with him. Our investment in roads, both national and local, is £2.9 billion; our investment in public transport is £2.2 billion. But as the public travel on roads, everybody stands to benefit by the considerable sum of money that is being invested.
Of course the current programme and the proposals announced in the Statement are not enough to meet the forecasts published in 1989. However, they are part of an ongoing programme. As I said in the Statement, they represent nearly the highest level ever in real terms and certainly the highest for 20 years. The environmental impact assessment meets all EC

371
requirements, just as we believe that the existing environmental impact assessments meet those requirements.
Employment was mentioned by both noble Lords. On the basis of CBI estimates, the investment announced in the Statement will sustain over 30,000 jobs in the construction industry. I can understand the confusion of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, with regard to road starts and completions. The schemes are not started and completed in one financial year. There is a situation where a number of schemes are started, probably in the previous two years and perhaps before that. We have announced 41 new schemes, and during the next financial year there will be an investment of just over £2 billion in those works.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. Is he saying that what is said in paragraph 4—in other words, the 100 miles of new roads during the course of 1993–94—has nothing to do with new money?
Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that will be the completion of works already in progress. In addition, there will be the 41 new starts. It is a rolling and continuous programme.
The noble Lord was concerned about the environmental consequences of some of the works proposed. However, the environmental consequences of not carrying out the works are just as worrying and there are certainly benefits from our proposals for changing existing road pattern use.
With regard to bridges in London, I cannot give the noble Lord the answer he seeks. Some bridges are local authority bridges and some are government bridges. The commitment that we have made is to improve the standard. The noble Lord is right with regard to the policy announced in the Statement. The pricing document to which the Statement refers is the pricing of roads between towns. As the noble Lord knows, there is a separate discussion and inquiry taking place for road pricing in towns.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe it is the turn of our side.
Baroness White: My Lords, no. It is our turn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think not. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend replied. No one from our side has yet put a question.
Unlike noble Lords opposite I warmly welcome the Statement made by my noble friend. He is to be congratulated on having maintained the size of the road building programme under the threat of difficult economic conditions. The fact that a large number of jobs will be retained in the construction industry must be good news. Does my noble friend agree that it is not only those involved in the construction of the new roads who will be grateful for the maintenance of' the programme, but that it is also the case that road construction is probably one of the quickest ways of
372
translating government capital expenditure into benefit for the economy as a whole, bringing in as it does cheaper transport for all those involved in trying to make this country wealthy? Does my noble friend agree that what he has announced today, particularly the new bypass programmes and the expansion of the M.25 and the A.1, will be widely welcomed?
My noble friend may be able to remind the House what proportion of taxation and expenditure by motorists in the form of road tax, fuel duty and so forth is actually being spent in the programme. It is still not a high proportion when one starts to make comparisons with expenditure on railways and so forth.
My noble friend mentioned also that the new roads comply with the European Community environmental impact assessment studies. That is to be welcomed because those environmental standards are part of our domestic requirements. Does my noble friend agree that under the new doctrine or wish for subsidiarity, that is something which should be clawed back from Brussels? There can be no real reason why Brussels and the European Community should have a say in something which should be purely a domestic issue —the construction of our own roads. Perhaps my noble friend can say whether that is one of the things which, under the new desire to translate subsidiarity into action, we can ask to be clawed back. I am prepared to accept that there are transport issues which cross frontiers in which the EC should have a say. But something such as this, which is a purely domestic issue, we should get back under our own control.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. He was right to draw attention to the fact that we have maintained the size of the road programme in times of economic difficulty and of constraints on public expenditure. That, as he agrees, is to be widely welcomed. It is to be widely welcomed by the travelling public and in particular by industry. There is nothing worse for industrialists than having their lorries and vans stuck in traffic jams, with all the consequent environmental pollution that that causes, and also the increased costs of moving goods from one place to another.
As a result of this programme, as my noble friend rightly says, the completion of the roads which are at present under construction and the 41 new starts will give a boost to industry in excess of that given to the sustenance of jobs in the construction industry. I agree with him about the EC impact assessment. I think he would agree with me that it is right that we all obey a common rule as to the effect on the environment. But it is certainly not up to the European Community to tell us where to put our roads. We can put our roads where we want to put our roads. However, we also ought—and it is right that we do—to carry out an environmental impact assessment first.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that none of the 41 new constructions will pass through a national park? We have been told about the environmental assessments that are being made and about the requirements of the European Community.

373
However, certainly so far as the approaches to Snowdonia are concerned, I should have thought that the suggestions from the European Community would be quite unacceptable to anyone concerned about the environmental consequences thereof. I hope that he can at least tell us that none of the propositions that he has put before us affects our national parks.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, so far as I am aware and from the information that I have, none of the proposals that I have mentioned in the Statement today affects a national park. I shall write to the noble Baroness if I prove to be wrong. The noble Baroness mentioned Snowdonia. Of course this Statement has nothing to do with Wales or Scotland, only England.
Baroness White: Splendid!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not know that I can welcome this Statement at all. The Statement accepts the fact that there will be a huge growth in road traffic in the next decade or two; whereas I believe—and I thought in fact the Government believed until this afternoon—that we need to deter a huge increase in road traffic, and indeed that it should be policy to transfer traffic, particularly goods traffic, from road to rail. There is everything in this Statement that encourages traffic to move from rail to road, and that is precisely what we do not want.
Furthermore, the Government appear to be dealing with traffic, roads and transport in a piecemeal fashion. It is undoubtedly true—and a read of today's Evening Standard will show this—that there is increasing evidence of a good deal of ill health arising from road traffic in towns because of the pollution that the internal combustion engine and road vehicles cause. There is a wider range of diseases now that are thought to be caused by road traffic fumes. There is nothing in this Statement, so far as I can see, that will discourage traffic from entering urban and built-up areas. Indeed there is everything in this Statement that will encourage more vehicles to arrive more quickly in the urban areas.
I find this particular Statement disappointing because it deals with only one part of the transport system, only one issue relating to the road system. It does not deal with the real problems being faced not only by road users but by the general population because of the effect on their health now and in the future due to the rising incidence of disease from traffic fumes.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is right: this Statement deals solely with roads. It is designed to do exactly that, and it deals with that effectively. I was disappointed by what the noble Lord said. I should have thought that he would have welcomed the Statement, and the increase in choice that we maintain for the consumer to travel by whatever means the consumer finds desirable. There is no question that, unless one imposes enormous restrictions on the liberties of people, which I know
374
the noble Lord would be the first to condemn, there will be a rise in traffic, and it is right that we cater for that.
I know that the noble Lord would wish to read what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading on the British Rail Bill in another place earlier this week. There he will see a statement made by my right honourable friend with particular reference to increasing the amount of freight on rail; to move it from road to rail. I hope that the noble Lord will not forget the shipping industry. The shipping industry takes 25 per cent. of the freight that travels within this country. I am one of those who is keen to see freight transferred not only from road to rail but from road and rail onto our ships that ply our coasts.
The noble Lord was rightly concerned about road traffic in towns. So am I, and so is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and that is why we have made the proposition for bypasses. The noble Lord will remember the debate that we had on traffic in our cities on Wednesday of last week in which he took part.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Earl clear up one point that arose during the earlier exchanges with his noble friend? Did I understand him to say that in our construction programme of trunk and motorway roads we respect, and intend to respect, the European environmental standards; that it is not true to say that our road building programme is simply a local domestic matter; that, in that respect, subsidiarity cannot be a sort of panacea and a general rule for all our road building programmes; and that we are in fact subject to the standards of the European Commission?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, let me make clear what I said to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, and I hope that this is welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is right that we meet the environmental standards not only of our own laws but also those that have been agreed in the Community. But it is wrong for the Community to tell us where we will build our roads. Yes, we must meet the standards, but where we want to put roads and bypasses surely is up to this country. I hope that the whole House would agree with that.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome this Statement for four reasons. First, it will give a welcome boost to the construction industry throughout England. Sometimes we get boosts to the construction industry in various parts of the country, but this seems to be fairly widespread. Secondly—and there is no mention of this in the Statement—to my certain knowledge three of the proposed changes are currently accident black spots. There is no reference at all in the Statement to the effects on reducing accidents; it is all about congestion and environmental impact. That reduction will be very welcome indeed.
Thirdly, I welcome it because of the bypasses, a point that has already been mentioned. Although people will be able to enter towns easier because of bypassing other towns en route, we hope that we will

375
not have the same situation as we have on so many sunny Sunday afternoons with some small towns becoming clogged up with endless traffic jams and asphyxiating fumes. Bypassing some of those towns will avoid that.
The other point I want to make concerns the EC. I find it staggering that when I travel elsewhere in the Community I find a lot of posters saying, "This road was constructed with the help of European Community funds", and you see these little blue flags with the 12 stars. Is there a case for some of this funding to come from the European Community for these necessary roadworks? Including VAT some £1,148 million—which is only 2 per cent. of the total road fund taxation—is received from motorists. We should go to Brussels to see whether they can make some contribution. I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful for the welcome which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave to the Statement. The measures will certainly benefit the travelling public and industry. One of the special areas of anxiety to the noble Baroness which will be met is in reducing the accident black spots at junctions in London which I mentioned in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will know them well in Hackney and on the M.11. I am sure that he too will welcome these measures. I welcome the noble Baroness's concern for the villages and towns which will now be bypassed. I agree so much with her on that matter. There is nothing worse than villages and towns being affected. If we can get the traffic to go round a town on a bypass, that will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as well.
As regards EC funding, limited funds are available under the transport infrastructure programme. I am not quite clear how much will be available for the road programme in England. However, I gather that some might be available for the road programme in Wales; but that is subject to something totally different.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on the Statement. I believe it was agreed all round the House in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird last Wednesday that the car is here to stay, and that one cannot legislate as to when people can use their cars. This Statement is very apt in that respect. There are a couple of points which I wish to ask my noble friend. Are there any plans (they might already exist) for widening the M.1 and M.3 just past the M.25? When one drives out of London, either to the West Country or to the North, one comes to a complete stop because of traffic congestion. Are there any plans for adding an extra lane for a certain length after one joins the M.1 or M.3 after the M.25?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux gave to the Statement. As regards his particular anxieties, from the map in front of me, I am unable to give him quite the answer that he would like.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we welcome certain road developments. This side of the House recognises that there is a need for certain roads to be developed, particularly bypasses. We fully support the need for them. Listening to the debate this afternoon—if one can call it that—it is one which we have heard so often. I must echo the point which has been made; namely, where is a real strategy for transport planning in this country? That is missing in the Statement. There was a debate in the other place on Monday on rail privatisation. I have read the report of that debate very carefully. If the Minister reads fully the whole of that debate, where will he see any indication of an integrated policy for road and rail? It is not there.
This afternoon the noble Earl compared the balance of expenditure between road and rail. How much of the £2.2 billion reserved for rail is for the Channel Tunnel? I am not trying to decry expenditure on it. Figures are rolled out, as they are for other ministries as well, without any detail as to their purpose. Can the Minister say how much expenditure is on railway development?
I realise that we are not debating railways today, but in view of what the noble Earl has said, I must refer to them. Is it not the fact that the Government have already decided that there is going to be a steady reduction of the public service obligation and grants? We need to have a strategy. As regards roads, we consider that bypasses are necessary besides roads to the docks. There must be a strategy.
The Government talk glibly about moving freight from road to rail. Examples have been given in the press in the past few days that because of freight charges the Freight Transport Association and other haulage people will move their goods from road to rail according to the charges. Therefore, it is essential that the rail charges are such that that is encouraged. Where do the Government indicate that they recognise that and where is their strategy? We have talked about roads, and about railways on Monday, but that is not sufficient. We need a full-scale debate to discover what the Government's intentions really are, and what their strategy is.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has great wisdom in these matters. On reflection, I believe that he would agree that his comments took the discussion rather wider than the Statement to which I must confine myself. I do not believe that we talk at all glibly about moving traffic from road to rail. I know that the noble Lord has read with care the Official Report of another place as regards the British Rail Bill. He will see in that report exactly what my right honourable friend said on the matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to go back to the issue of the exodus of freight from rail to road, which is the very opposite of what the Government seek to achieve. Why does the Minister introduce this red herring about the Community wishing to dictate our transport road requirements? There is nothing of the sort. What the

377
Commission is duty bound to do is to investigate whether the Government have complied with the European environmental impact assessment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the first question raised by the noble Lord I have already answered; the second question was answered in response to a question asked by my noble friend Lord Brabazon.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about the development of technology for road pricing, especially in the cities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not at the moment.

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]
4.57 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 11 [Preparation of schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Consultation on preparation of schemes]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert:
("() Where a public body fails to comply with any directions given to it under subsection (1) above the Board shall have the power to apply to the court for an order of judicial review.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to join with the Minister in strengthening the powers and the reputation of the board. The anxiety which we have derives from Clause 12 of the Bill. Subsection (1) of that clause states:
"A public body preparing a scheme for submission … shall carry out such consultations as may be appropriate".
Subsection (2) states:
"A public body shall comply with any directions given to it by the Board".
We see that the obligation is there but we cannot find any sanction for non-performance. Therefore, this amendment simply entitles the board to have power to apply to the Divisional Court for an order of judicial review. It is to give a legal sanction to the board to secure enforcement of the obligation in Clause 12(2). I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: We have made quite good progress this evening and I hesitate very much to intervene. But I hope that my noble friend cannot accept this troublesome amendment. The noble Lord reminded the Committee of Clause 12 which is a very sensible clause. It sets out that,
"A public body preparing a scheme for submission to the Board shall carry out such consultations as may be appropriate in order to ascertain views representative of Welsh-speaking members of the public".
Subsection (2) states:
"A public body shall comply with any directions given to it by the Board in connection with the performance of its duty under subsection (1) above".
If there is a dispute between the public body and the board as to what is appropriate in certain circumstances and as to whether such consultations should take place, the amendment seeks to ensure that
378
the board should have the power to take the matter to the High Court for a judicial review. It would be wrong if the High Court were to engage in seeking the proper answer to the question of consultation on such matters instead of the issue being solved amicably, as it should be resolved, between the board and the public body. The whole purpose behind the Bill is to achieve co-operation, not coercion.
Therefore, I think that it is entirely wrong to include in a Bill the power to have a judicial review. The power to seek judicial review does not have to be written into a Bill. It may well be that circumstances arise in the course of the board's activities when it might seek a judicial review, but to include that in the Bill in conjunction with the very sensible Clause 12 seems extraordinary.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, has misunderstood the amendment. It does not relate to a judicial review of a failure to carry out consultations; but a judicial review of a failure to comply with directions. If the Minister were to say now that the noble Lord is correct and that no specific power of the board is required in the Bill to entitle the board to go for a judicial review, I should immediately withdraw my amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is correct. If a body has consulted—and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, says that it will have consulted—and if it makes a scheme, then it is up to the body concerned to make certain that the scheme accords with the guidelines. I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir that it will do that by co-operation. The board and the body will discuss together and, as a result of that discussion, there will be a scheme. If the board fails to produce a scheme or if anyone says that there has been inadequate consultation, one does not then take the matter to judicial review. I agree with my noble friend that that would be the wrong step to take because, as he said, one is trying to achieve co-operation, not coercion. In fact, the board would say to that body, "You have not implemented that scheme", and it would not approve the scheme. It would tell the body to produce another scheme. If, in the end, the body did not produce another scheme, the board would then go to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State would ultimately give a direction. If the body still did not produce the correct scheme, the Secretary of State could go to the High Court for a writ of mandamus, and if the body still did not produce the scheme, it would be in contempt of court.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: With great respect, I think that the point has been missed, so I shall make it again. The obligation under Clause 12 is on a public body, as defined, to "carry out such consultations". That is its obligation. Clause 12(2) states:
"A public body shall comply"—
not "may", but "shall"—
"with any directions given to it by the Board in connection with the performance of its duty under subsection (1) above".
Its duty under subsection (1) is not to produce a scheme, but to carry out consultations.

379
My simple point—and it really is of the simplest ——is that the body is obliged to carry out consultations. That is its duty. The board may give it directions, but if it fails to comply there is no sanction. I am suggesting that there should be a longstop—and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, that it should be a longstop. At present if there is a failure to comply, the board is toothless. I am suggesting that it should be given a denture.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that the board is toothless. If the body has not carried out the consultations when it prepares the scheme for approval by the board, the board would not then approve it because it would say, "You have not carried out your consultations. Go and carry out those consultations and then produce a scheme for us to approve." That is the sanction.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: But if the public body still refuses, the ultimate sanction —and here I agree with the noble Earl—is that the board may prepare its scheme but the Secretary of State may impose a scheme. At the end of the day, there may be the directed imposition of a scheme, still without any proper consultation.
Lord Prys-Davies: I agree with every word that has been spoken by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. We very much agree that we should go along the route of co-operation, but Clause 12(1) gives the board the power to issue directions. That is an unconditional power. Indeed, it is the only unconditional power that the board has been given. 'The question raised by my noble friend is: what happens if the public body refuses to comply? If it refuses to comply, the Bill does not provide an answer unless the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, is correct and that, in those circumstances, the board would be able to apply for judicial review proceedings. That is my understanding of the position.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is correct. As a last resort, the board could apply for judicial review —as anyone can. But that would not be the route normally taken. As I have explained, the board would say to the body, "Go and produce a new set of schemes after you have had public consultation." The sanction behind it in the end is that the Secretary of State could impose a scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, may say that there would not have been public consultation and that would be the drawback for the body because the chances are that such a scheme would be very much tighter and harsher on that body than would have been the case if the body had gone out to consultation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the Minister. We simply wanted to probe the point. Now that we have had an unambiguous indication that, in some circumstances, the board will have the locus to go for judicial review, accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Approval or imposition of schemes]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak briefly to this amendment which simply seeks to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may". It raises for consideration whether such wording might not be better in order to ensure an early decision on the part of the Secretary of State. We fear that the word "may" presents endless grounds for delay if the Secretary of State is indecisive or worried about offending either the board or the public body. I should very much welcome the view of the Committee and that of the Minister. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: I think that it would be a mistake to concentrate overmuch on the powers contained within subsection (5) of this clause and to which this amendment relates. I would draw the Committee's attention instead to the powers granted to the Secretary of State by subsection (4). This allows the Secretary of State to refer schemes back to the board and the public body concerned. This seems to me by far the best way of resolving disputes of this nature.
The intention of the Bill, however, is that the Secretary of State should be empowered rather than required to impose a scheme should there continue to be a failure to agree. There is nothing sinister about this. Granting the Secretary of State powers of this nature is fully in conformity with the pattern adopted in many other Bills. What would not be in conformity or, indeed, helpful, would be to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State in the way proposed by this amendment. What is important is that the Secretary of State should have the power to impose the scheme himself. The Bill as drafted ensures that he has.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall consider the answer, and, if appropriate, return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Failure by public body to give effect to scheme.—(1)
.—(1)A complaint of a failure by a public body to give effect to a scheme approved by the Board may be made the subject of civil proceedings by any person who claims to have been directly affected by that failure.
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1) above shall be brought only in a County Court but all such remedies shall be obtainable in such proceedings as would be obtainable in the High Court.
(3) The Board may, if it thinks fit, defray, or contribute towards, any fees or expenses incurred by a person in relation to proceedings or proposed proceedings under this Act, provided that such a person applies to the Board for assistance under this subsection.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any remedy, including proceedings for judicial review, available to a person (apart from this section) in respect of a failure to observe a provision of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: We regard this amendment as being of the greatest importance. It entitles an

381
individual member of the public who complains that a public body has not discharged its statutory duty when a scheme has been approved by the board or the Secretary of State to be able to sue for damages. We would expect that to be a power exercised relatively infrequently. We believe that it is important as a matter of principle. A person who suffers racial harassment or discrimination is entitled to damages; a person who suffers discrimination on the grounds of sex is entitled to damages; sexual harassment is a ground for damages.
We merely suggest that, if the languages are of equal validity, are to be treated on a basis of equality, or are both official languages, and an individual is legitimately aggrieved, he or she should be able to go to the county court and sue for damages. They would of course be relatively modest. One is thinking, I suppose, in terms of possibly £500 or £1,000. If the Minister wished to insert such a limit, we would find that unobjectionable.
Consequential to that legal right, power is given to the board to assist such a plaintiff in respect of legal expenses and, for the avoidance of any doubt, if there is a judicial review remedy for the individual, that would be maintained intact. It is important as a matter of principle that it should be understood and reflected in the Bill that those are rights for individuals.
Although the board will draw up schemes, and will have enforcement machinery, as will the Secretary of State, it is the individual who is aggrieved, not the board, not the Secretary of State. I understand of course what the Minister has said, that, in due time, if directions made by the Secretary of State are not complied with, then, by virtue of Clause 19(3), the Secretary of State, as the ultimate weapon, may go to the Divisional Court and ask for judicial review. Because of the underfunding of the court system and the lack of judges able to try these difficult questions, judicial review takes up to two years. An urgent application for judicial review, if one is exceptionally lucky, can get on within one year. So the hurt, the distress, the legitimate complaint, will inure for some time. Apart from that, these are rights for individuals which should, in rare circumstances, give the individual the right to sue in the county court.
It is not a probing amendment; it is not a questioning amendment. We, on this side, with great respect, regard it as fundamental. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I oppose the amendment again for the reason that I have expressed before. It is a great mistake to try to write into the Bill that recourse to the courts will be an answer to the Bill's purpose. The Bill's purpose is to try to advance, through co-operation and understanding, the Welsh language. If it is written into the Bill that people who have complaints should have recourse to the courts, that will not advance the Welsh language.
People who have suffered damage in any way by reason of a public body's breach of its duty in law, could bring an action, but I do not know why that
382
should be put into the Bill. It can lead only to trouble. One can see many an occasion when people will be making complaints just to make political points.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If there is no right specified in the Bill, what would the action be? What right of action for damages would the individual have?
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir. It would make too much of the Bill to have recourse to the courts. As I said earlier, the great idea is to have as much co-operation as possible. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is a distinguished member of the legal profession, and I have no doubt that he is used to suing for damages. He is anxious to see that there is such a recourse in the Bill. There are drawbacks to that, and I shall try to explain why.
Members of the public must have a right of redress. At the moment they have a number of avenues for redress. That can of course involve recourse to the courts, but in the majority of instances that will not be so, presumably because it would be too expensive.
The ombudsmen play an important part, as do the many and varied tribunals which exist in different parts of the public sector. The noble Lord said that the principle contained in the amendment is important. We must be careful about that, because, in considering the new complaints machinery for which we are providing in the Bill, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the rights of redress available to Welsh speakers reflect those available to non-Welsh speakers. We should not create any imbalance. Such an imbalance would be created if a Welsh speaker could approach the courts and claim for damages where a public body had failed to make a Welsh language form available but a non-Welsh speaker was unable to go to court and claim damages for a failure to provide an English form.
Perhaps I may give an example. If a Welsh speaking person went, for example, to British Rail, and said, "Can I please have a timetable in Welsh?" and British Rail said, "I am so sorry we have run out of all the Welsh ones but you can have an English one", the person might say, "I want a Welsh one. Under your scheme you undertake to provide a Welsh one. I shall take you to court". An English-speaking Welshman would go to British Rail and may say, "Please may I have an English timetable?" The reply might be, "We have run out of English timetables, but you can have a Welsh one". That English-speaking Welshman would not have recourse to the courts in the same way as the Welsh-speaking Welshman would under the amendment.
In considering the alternative means of redress, it is important to have regard to what it would mean in practice for a Welsh-speaking consumer. A Welsh speaker should not have to initiate civil proceedings to obtain a satisfactory level of Welsh language service. That would represent an imposing obstacle for many Welsh speakers and offer no certainty as to the outcome. Obviously individuals must have a right of redress where there has been a failure of the scheme. The Bill takes account of that.

383
First, since the board will have been instrumental in agreeing the schemes, it will have a special incentive to ensure that those schemes are complied with. There is then the formal complaint mechanism which is provided for in the Bill, where a person can complain to the board that that is not being done. Despite that, Welsh-speaking consumers will be able to expect the board to use its influence to ensure that failures of schemes are rectified as a matter of urgency. Although it may be a comfort to some to look forward to a formal upholding of their complaint at the end of a lengthy investigation procedure, the majority of Welsh speaking consumers will be more interested in receiving the service which the public body has undertaken to provide. The important point is that the board's ability to secure implementation of any recommendation which it may make will be backed up by the Secretary of State's powers of direction. That should ensure that the board's advice is heeded.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry to press this matter. Not too long ago when I started at the Bar a famous judge, who had just started on the Bench, was Mr. Justice Caulfield. If you put forward a particularly weak proposition to him, he used to put his spectacles on the end of his nose and say, "Is that your best point?" I want to look at the noble Earl's best points, but I believe that I shall need my magnifying glass to find them. I quote the noble Earl when he said that it is absolutely agreed that it is important that the individual citizen should have some form of right of redress. I waited, clutching the end of the Bench and clenching my teeth to find out what was to be the form of redress. The answer is that there is none.
If I live in Birmingham and have a black skin, I can rightly claim compensation by way of damages for the gross insults done to me as an individual. I do not have to complain about the local authority or the person in Woolworth's or anywhere else. I can complain and receive damages. If I am wrongly discriminated against because I am a woman who wishes to leave work to have a child, I can claim damages. Some day someone will be able to explain to the Committee why someone who is wounded linguistically in the same way has no right to damages. I await such an explanation with a degree of anticipation and incredulity.
It is said that there will be redress internally in the Bill; there is none. I hope that the Minister will concede that we have done our best to be helpful. On many occasions we have said that we have welcomed the discussions that we have had because we all want this to emerge as the best possible Act. I do not wish to breach confidences, but I understood that the board would have the power to recommend compensation. Have the Government changed their mind? Where is the compensation to be found in the Bill? There is no redress for the individual except, at the end of the day, on the direction of the Secretary of State. In most cases that will be sufficient. However, if there is the wound of which I speak, which is not dissimilar in class, category or degree from the wounds of which I spoke earlier, then compensation should be available.
384
I take the case of the man with the timetable. I hear Mr. Justice Caulfield again inquiring, "Is that your best point?" The man with the timetable who is told that there are no more timetables will be told by any competent solicitor, with which Wales is well stocked, "Do not be a fool. You do not have a case." If that man wanted to be a fool and take his case to court, the judge would listen patiently and award him nothing.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, fortify me in my opposition to the amendment. He said, quite rightly, that if there is sexual discrimination, damages can be obtained. If there is racial discrimination, damages can be obtained. However, the noble Lord is seeking to put into the Bill the right to damages for linguistic as opposed to sexual discrimination. I believe that to be wholly wrong. It alters the whole basis of the Bill and must be opposed.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: On this side of the Committee we think to the contrary; namely, that that is entirely right and that it is a matter of the utmost seriousness to us and to many of those who have submitted evidence to us and who have written to us as individuals.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, that everybody wants to go forward in a spirit of good will so that we achieve the best possible legislation on which we all agree. However, we are dealing with a matter of law. The context of the amendment is the context of the citizen's rights. Many people who wrote to us stressed that the Bill as it stands is very strong on bureaucracy and the powers of the Secretary of State but has virtually nothing to say about the individual rights of the citizens of Wales in any respect.
Rights of redress are central to our understanding of the Bill. Am I right in thinking that the noble Earl said and meant that the strongest right in this Bill for the individual citizen is the right to complain to the board? If that is the individual citizen's strongest right, we are in a parlous state.
Lord Aberdare: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord who has just spoken what is his answer to what has been said by my noble friend; namely, that he is seeking to give rights to Welsh-speaking citizens which are not enjoyed by English-speaking citizens.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may respond to that because it was my dog that raised that rabbit. The proposition put forward is erroneous. If a monoglot English-speaking resident of Wales is discriminated against, we believe that he should have the same rights. However, experience has shown that linguistic discrimination tends to be experienced rather more by Welsh speakers than by English speakers.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, cannot get away with that. He is trying to put into the Bill a provision which is slanted one way. The noble Lord gave an example of a black-skinned person in Birmingham being racially abused. That person can

385
claim damages. However, the point is that a white-skinned person in Birmingham who is racially abused also has the right to damages.
I gave an example of a gentleman who was trying to obtain a timetable. The noble Lord cavalierly asked whether that was the best example that I could give. It was a simple example and I thought therefore it might appeal to the noble Lord because he would be able to understand it.
The noble Lord is a barrister and is in a confrontational mood this afternoon. I cannot see why he wants to be confrontational. The amendment is not concerned with whether somebody is being discriminated against but whether a public body is not doing what it should do, is empowered to do by law and what the board has said it should do. If that public body is discriminating against one person, it is discriminating against all the Welsh-speaking people.
In his great excitement to claim damages for his friends, perhaps the noble Lord will consider again the Welsh-speaking gentleman who goes along to ask for the timetable and is not given one because one is not available. Let us suppose that he does not go to a wonderful solicitor who tells him that he has not got a case but instead he goes to another equally clever Welshman who tells him that he does have a case. Let us suppose that that case is taken to the court and he wins it. There will be a queue of people at that railway station asking for timetables and knowing perfectly well that they are not available because they will wish to obtain the same compensation. That premise is discriminatory and is against the whole ethos of the Bill, which is not coercion but co-operation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry to be accused of being confrontational because that is an accusation which I have never heard cast against me in the past. I agree that if someone in Cardiganshire managed to obtain compensation because he could not obtain a timetable in Welsh, the rest of the residents of Cardiganshire would be queuing up for timetables. I am only in confrontation with the noble Earl because we are deeply divided on principle. Although we are dealing with the matter in a spirit of good humour —as always, I hope—there are important matters here.
My simple question, couched in an extremely non-confrontational tone, was to ask whether I am mistaken because on an earlier occasion I thought it was said that it was anticipated that the board would have power to recommend compensation. I do not think that I misheard.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I cannot vouch for the hearing of the noble Lord. That is a matter for him. I can only tell him it is not our intention that the board should award compensation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl was present at the same meeting. Therefore the stance has changed and I recognise that. However, the fact remains that a certain type of discrimination is the foundation of damages. I simply suggest that if a
386
proper case can be made out—if it were a trivial case, the judge would throw it out—to show that an individual has been wounded in his individual rights, then compensation should lie. That is a perfectly moderate, non-confrontational observation.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord will agree that his amendment would constitute one way traffic and that would not be fair.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If the Minister wishes to give equivalent rights—he believes those rights are lacking—to English people who are wrongly discriminated against in Wales, I personally would warmly applaud his effort.
Lord Prys-Davies: It would be helpful if the Minister can clarify the rights of an individual who has been directly affected by the failure of a public body to carry out a scheme. As I understand it, the route which is available to that individual is to make a complaint to the board. That is the one new right that has been given to a Welsh speaker—the right to complain. Then the board may investigate the complaint and may issue a report. The public authority may refuse to comply with the recommendation in the report and, ultimately, the Secretary of State may apply for mandamus. Assuming, as I think we must, that notwithstanding good intentions, in the rare circumstances—those were the words of my noble friend—that the worst may happen and the public body refuses to comply with the board, the Secretary of State may refuse to order mandamus proceedings. Does the individual have any right in those circumstances? Can he go to the court?
Earl Ferrers: Anyone can go to a court. Anyone can take anyone to court on the basis of civil proceedings. However, that is unlikely to happen because it is very expensive. We come back to the proposition that if one person is being discriminated against—that is an unfortunate word—it would mean that every Welsh speaker was being discriminated against. If that is so, it would mean that the public body concerned was not carrying out the duties which it undertakes to do and which it has agreed to do under the terms of the scheme. Anyone who feels that way has the right of complaint. There is a complaints procedure where one approaches the board. It is up to the board then to approach the body concerned and tell it to put its house in order.
Lord Prys-Davies: Under the Bill there is a non-legal route. In a sense it is a political route in that one complains to the board and there is then a route to the Secretary of State. Ought there not to be an alternative route—the legal route? Should there not be a right to go to the court and seek a judicial review order? The Minister said that everyone is entitled to go to the court but that is expensive. We recognise that it is expensive. The third subsection of the amendment allows the board, if it thinks fit, to contribute towards the legal expenses to be incurred by a person who wishes to take proceedings. Of course the costs of mounting a legal action against a public body are beyond the resources of most individuals and even of

387
pressure groups who might wish to take proceedings. Is the Minister saying that where the individual has failed to obtain redress along the route prescribed in the Bill he may go to the court and in those circumstances the board has the discretion to contribute towards the cost of financing an action?
Earl Ferrers: No, I am not saying that. I can only come back to the principle that we have tried to adumbrate which is that we do not wish everyone to end up in the courts. We are trying to encourage the use of the Welsh language. We have gone a long way down that road by stating that guidelines and schemes will be produced and if schemes are not produced properly the board will not agree to them. Then the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, encouraged by his litigious noble friend behind him says, "Let everyone go to court and try to get some money." That is not the route we want to take. If someone is personally aggrieved, he can approach the ombudsman. If he wants to take the body concerned to court he can do so, but if that body is not fulfilling its duties as regards the Welsh language it is a matter for the Welsh Language Board to put right. I can see that the noble Lord feels he is following a good old ferret down a rabbit hole, but I hope he will realise we have adopted the best course.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am deeply distressed to think that my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies ever needed encouragement from me to be litigious. This is an important matter. The Minister said that discrimination is an ugly word. It is an ugly word. It is also an ugly activity and that is why the word attached to it is ugly. I shall be obliged to withdraw this amendment. Nevertheless I say—I hope with every care—that this issue will cause a good deal of hurt and a good deal of anger to those who are most interested in these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Investigations]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 7, line 28, leave out from ("case") to end of line, and insert:
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, an investigation shall be conducted in public unless the Board determines that it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case for the investigation to be conducted in private.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. As regards Amendment No. 37, there are three good reasons for preferring the wording of this amendment to that which appears in the Bill. They are not adversarial or confrontational reasons. Consequently, we offer the amendment in a spirit of conciliation and good will which I hope the Minister and Members of the Committee on the other side of the Chamber will accept.
First, we believe that our wording is much more in harmony with the Government's declared policy in favour of open government where open government is possible. At present that area is too closed and we wish to open it up. Secondly, where most public bodies are
388
concerned in Wales, there would assuredly be great public interest in an investigation by the board into any alleged non-compliance. I hope the Committee will believe me when I say that in the deepest heart of Dyfed this is hot news. People there would be very interested in being personally present at any investigation of this kind.
Thirdly, in all investigations of this kind the presumption should surely be that they take place in public, if that is at all possible. The amendment clearly places the onus of proof on anyone who argues that a private hearing is necessary. We maintain that that is the right way round. Can the noble Earl spell out for the Committee any of the circumstances in which it is thought that a private investigation would be so vital? Will he produce his best point as regards why the Bill puts the onus this way round rather than the way we are proposing?
In Amendment No. 38 we are simply proposing that an organisation should be spelt out as something slightly different from a person. As regards Amendment No. 39, I have spoken before on the importance of the board making its proceedings as public as possible. I remind the Committee that the word "publish" does not imply the printing and distribution of a large number of glossy pamphlets. A press release can in most cases suffice. The amendment uses the word "may" and not "shall". I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that there is no difference between us on this issue. Nor is there anything sinister in what is written in the Bill. Clause 16(2) states:
"The procedure for conducting an investigation under this section shall be such as the Board considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case".
In other words, that gives the board total discretion to do what it considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The subsection also states that:
"an investigation may be conducted in private".
That provision was included in order to remove any uncertainty. The investigation may be a small one and the board may invite people to come and discuss the matter. Alternatively, the investigation may be of a larger nature, in which case there would be a public meeting. The intention is to allow the board to choose the correct procedure applicable to the circumstances of each individual case.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful for that reassurance. However, I still consider that for emphasis it would be clearer, better, and more reassuring for the people of Wales if it were stated on the face of the Bill that the investigation should normally take place in public although provision could be made for an investigation to be conducted in private. If the noble Earl is prepared to give a few days' thought to the possibility of some slight rewording I would be reassured.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether I shall give the matter a few days' thought, but I shall certainly give it some thought.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful for that reassurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Complaints of non-compliance]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 37, after ("person") insert ("or by an organisation with a special interest in safeguarding and promoting the use of the Welsh language,").
The noble Lord said: I appreciate that the word "person" can mean a group. That may well be the case in respect of many provisions of the Companies Act. However, I am worried that in Clause 17 the complainant is defined as:
"a person who claims to have been directly affected by a failure of a public body to carry out a scheme".
He has to show that he has been affected directly. A group would almost certainly not be able to satisfy that precondition. Yet an omission on the part of a public body might raise a matter of general significance. In those circumstances it should be possible for a group to make a complaint.
If the Minister confirms that the word "person" also means a group then I am content. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I can assure the noble Lord that the use of the word "person" in Clause 17 would cover the type of organisation which is referred to in Amendment No. 38. My advisers tell me that the use of the word "person" in this context includes bodies corporate and unincorporate. I hope that that reply will comfort the noble Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: That reply is satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 18 [Reports on investigations]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 9, at end insert ("and the Board may publish the report.").
The noble Lord said: I have already said as much about publishing as perhaps the Committee would wish to hear. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was so expeditious that I was momentarily floored, not least because, in respect of the previous amendment, I was looking at the wrong amendment when I rose to answer the noble Lord. However, I discovered that fact in time and the answer that I gave was the correct one.
It is certainly arguable that the board would be able to publish any reports which it had prepared under the terms of Clause 18. This matter is so central to the whole of the Bill that I very much agree with the noble Lord that we must remove all vestiges of doubt. Perhaps I could take the matter away and consider it again. I accept the amendment in principle, but should like to make certain that the wording is correct.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Responsibility of government departments and public bodies
.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other enactment, it shall be the duty of—

(a) every government department, and

(b) every public body,

the executive responsibilities of which extend to Wales, when providing written material of whatever nature to, or otherwise communicating by any means whatsoever with, any person resident in Wales, in the course of discharging its executive responsibilities, to ensure that the language used, whether Welsh or English, as the case may be, complies with the requirements of that person unless those requirements are unreasonable or compliance with them would be impracticable.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a requirement made in any case by any person shall be presumed to be reasonable and compliance with it shall be presumed to be practicable unless the contrary in either case is proved; and the test of what is reasonable or practicable as the case may be shall be objective.
(3) Every government department or public body such as referred to in subsection (1) above shall in discharging the duties imposed by that subsection have regard to any guidelines issued under this Act for the purpose of giving practical guidance with respect to those duties.").
Lord Geraint: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hooson who is unable to be present today. He had to go back to Montgomery to attend the funeral of a close friend. However, he feels very strongly about the amendment tabled in his name and would like to have the right to speak on this very important subject at Report stage.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of the Race Relations Act 1976.1976 c. 74
.—(1) The Race Relations Act 1976 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After section 4 there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Communi-cation in Welsh.
4A. For the purposes of this Part of this Act a requirement or condition relating to an ability to communicate in Welsh shall be justifiable where the person to whom it is applied would, in the course of employment to which the requirement or condition applies, deal on a regular basis with persons who normally use Welsh and the level of ability required is no greater than is needed to do so.".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to insert a new subsection in the Race Relations Act. Local authorities in North and West Wales in particular are concerned as to when they can lawfully stipulate that relative proficiency in the Welsh language is a condition of employment without being in breach of Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Experience has shown that there is a potential conflict between the Race Relations Act and the appointment

391
policies of some local authorities. Some Members of the Committee will know that that has been the subject of litigation.
The issue is the cause of considerable anxiety in Gwynedd and Dyfed. Four of the local authorities in North Wales and South-West Wales have written to us in support of an amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 43, as have a large number of Welsh voluntary organisations. The amendment mirrors wording proposed by the Welsh Language Board.
There is obviously no problem when the linguistic condition relates to a post involving the teaching of Welsh. However, lawful linguistic requirements should not be restricted to such posts. There is a need for such a requirement for many posts in the public sector. Without the amendment, or an amendment along these lines, the present uncertainty and anxiety will prevail.
I understand on good authority that the board's amendment was acceptable to the race relations commission, subject to an additional proviso to take account of applicants who are able and willing to learn Welsh if appointed. That proviso was acceptable to the Welsh Language Board. It is my understanding that the commission has agreed that an amendment to Section 4 of the 1976 Act should be incorporated in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that my understanding of the position is correct.
The local authorities and others were surprised, and very sorry, to find that the Bill does not address the problem. However, if the Bill incorporated the amendment, modified to include the proviso which the commission has agreed with the board, the problem would be resolved. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am pleased to support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, indicated, the proviso was part of the original submission of the Welsh Language Board. It is also strongly supported by local authorities which have been trying to practise a policy of linguistically sensitive service delivery. I refer in particular to the so-called caring professions—social services, health care, social work practice, and so on. The equivalent of what is known in the jargon as ethnically sensitive social work practice in the context of the Welsh language is linguistically sensitive in those areas. To ensure that potential receivers of services can have their service through the medium of a language of their choice involves appointment procedures requiring competence in the language.
In an earlier debate we had reference in clear terms —I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—to the effect of different forms of discrimination on individuals. However, there is a difference between sexism, racism and "linguism". When we talk about language policy, we refer to the potential for persons to be able to receive training in another language and therefore to become proficient and competent to be employed, thus removing any potential discrimination.
Obviously I do not ask for affirmative or positive discrimination in all areas. However, where the delivery of the service is required through the medium of Welsh, there is room for positive discrimination in
392
order to ensure that people are recruited who are able to provide a service through the language. However, as important as the initial advertisements using the phraseology that individuals should be competent in Welsh is the provision that people who are recruited to public service (where that service is required to be a bilingual delivery) should have the opportunity to learn the language.
In that context the Welsh Language Board and the schemes have an important contribution to make. It would be possible to specify in advertisements that candidates for public appointments who do not have a fluency in the language will have opportunity to avail themselves of that skill. That is an important dimension of the policy. It allows for recruitment to the public services in Wales to be made flexible. It ensures that linguistic and other skills are available for those who provide such services.
The amendment raises a matter of concern which has arisen in specific cases. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson—he apologises for his absence—has been personally involved in an advisory and legal capacity. In some cases an attempt has been made to use the race relations legislation—I strongly support the legislation—and to extend it to linguistic discrimination. Again there is a distinction to be made. Equal linguistic opportunity is not necessarily the same as equal general opportunity or equal opportunity in terms of a multiracial society. Such distinctions are very sensitive. They have to be developed and set out clearly.
There are a number of ways of doing so. One is to amend the Race Relations Act, as set out in the clause. I commend another way to the department, although I repeat that from the Cross-Benches I do not seek to usurp the role of the Minister. It is to consider the ways in which the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and any other such agency which is not directly accountable to the Welsh Office, can arrive at schemes with the Welsh Language Board. That course would clarify the position. One would then have an agreement in the public services between public bodies that were not necessarily accountable to the Welsh Office, as the Welsh Language Board is to the Secretary of State, but were accountable to other Secretaries of State. They would then be able to come to an agreement between the Welsh Language Board and those bodies. The statements would describe the policies on recruitment and services to be delivered in the Welsh language.
That would immediately clarify the situation. I commend that course to the Minister today, if, for any reason, he cannot accept this sensible amendment.
Viscount St. Davids: If I understand the intention behind this amendment correctly, its aim is to clarify the circumstances under which an employer may justifiably stipulate an ability to speak Welsh as a condition of employment. Given the implications which this Bill will have for the delivery of Welsh language services throughout the public sector, which will in part be dependent upon the presence of Welsh-speaking members of staff, it is certainly an area where we need to remove any uncertainty.

393
I am pleased that the amendment, while seeking to clarify this issue, does not seek to interfere with principles of existing employment law by removing the need for such language requirements to be justified. Given the growth in Welsh language services which we all want to see, I think that that is particularly important. It may be that we see a growth in a number of posts where a knowledge of Welsh is essential. What the Government do not believe would be desirable would be a move to a position where all posts are so described. This will not be the case under the Bill. It is not our intention that all public servants, for example, must speak Welsh. The successful implementation of this Bill does not depend on that. We would not have brought it before this Committee if it did.
I therefore have considerable sympathy with the objectives underlining this amendment. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill in this way. What is being suggested by the amendment is a clarification of the justification criterion contained in the Race Relations Act 1976. First, the concept of what is justifiable in this context is already to some extent defined by case law. Secondly, the Government's view is that, if required, it would be far preferable for clarification to be achieved by means of non-statutory guidance. I would expect the Welsh Language Board to have an important input in the content of such guidance. I understand that the board would expect the commission to play an important part in the guidance to which I have referred.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for his initial response. However, perhaps he will answer my more detailed question and specify whether commissions and bodies, such as the EOC and the CRE, which are not accountable to the Welsh Office as a department, but are public bodies operating in Wales, will be expected to draw up schemes within the terms of the Bill.
Viscount St. Davids: I understand that that is so.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for the obvious sympathy of the Minister. However, I am not convinced that we have to rely on an assurance in the terms that he has expressed: that it may be adequately covered one day in the indefinite future when a language scheme may be agreed between the Welsh Language Board and the Commission for Racial Equality. As I understand it, those bodies have agreed that this is a proper matter to be included in the Bill. Given that we have the provision before us, the assurance should be embodied in the legislation and not simply left to an assurance, an undertaking or a scheme to be agreed at some time in the future. I shall study with my noble friends what the Minister said; but we believe that there is a case for embodying the principle in this clause in the Bill.
In addition to reflecting an agreement between the board and the commission, the amendment reflects to a large measure a significant part of the decisions of the European Court of Justice in the Groener case, to which I referred on Tuesday. Is it not possible for the
394
Government to reconsider their position and agree to embody the amendment, together with the commission's proviso, in the Bill? If the Government were to agree to do that, it would remove the uncertainty and be a source of great satisfaction.
6 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: The Race Relations Act requires that the language requirement should always be justifiable. It does so without specifying any particular language. It would be to imbalance such legislation if the position of Welsh as a condition of employment were to be clarified but not that of any other language. Therefore the issuing of non-statutory guidance seems to us to be by far the best way of resolving the issue.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Welsh is a language of the United Kingdom which is of official status or equal validity.
Baroness White: All of us, even those who were doubtful about this, share the view of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn that Welsh is different in Wales.
Viscount St. Davids: I do not think that I need any reminder about the Welsh language in Wales. This is a Bill which, by promoting the use of the Welsh language, will bring with it a greater cultural cohesion in Wales. References to race relations or similar matters should not be on the face of the Bill. As I said, the Race Relations Act already makes the provision that a language requirement should be justifiable. That is the way we would like to leave it.
Lord Prys-Davies: The race relations commission has a bank of information, knowledge and experience. It believes in and supports the amendment that is confined to the Welsh language as being compatible with its policy. Since that is the attitude of the commission, why are the Government concerned? The commission sees no problems here.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Perhaps I may pursue the argument a little further. Although I would not be one to make distinctions between languages, it is a distinction already made between so-called ethnic minority Community languages (which, although they are international languages in their own right, are so described in the United Kingdom) and what we are talking about here—namely, a national language. We all agree that in one sense or another it is national within Wales and official within Wales. The whole argument of the Government in the earlier context is that we do not need to write "official" on the face of the Bill, it is self-evident that that is so. If that is so, there is no problem about making a distinction in the case of Welsh in Wales and this does not necessarily relate to the position of other Community languages within the United Kingdom.
Where there have been cases in the past where one piece of legislation linked with racial equality has been, in my view, misused in the area of linguistic equality, we need to make that clear. Where better to do it than in this legislation?
Viscount St. Davids: I still maintain that any inclusion of an amendment of this nature would be totally against the ethos of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: Is that the considered view of the department?
Viscount St. Davids: Given the strength of feeling which I find in the Committee, I shall take the matter away and give it further consideration.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for that response. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Use of Welsh in legal proceedings]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 9, line 7, leave out ("spoken") and insert ("used").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. It seeks to change the word "spoken" to "used". I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: We gave an undertaking during the Second Reading debate that the Government would be bringing forward an amendment to Clause 21 concerning the use of written evidence in Welsh in the courts. The Minister of State at the Welsh Office has given a similar undertaking. I am happy to repeat that undertaking today though the Committee will note that it has yet to appear on the list of amendments tabled by the Government. Clause 21 of this Bill as it currently stands repeats the provision contained within the Welsh Language Act 1967. I understand that the general policy of the courts is to interpret this provision as extending to written evidence. The Government are however anxious that this should in future be reflected in the law. The amendment we propose to introduce will ensure that it is.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for those sympathetic comments. He called in aid the 1967 Act. I also call in aid that Act and in particular the preamble. It is in these terms:
"Whereas it is proper that the Welsh language should be freely used by those who so desire in the hearing of legal proceedings in Wales and Monmouthshire".
On the basis of that preamble, the Government should now honour the commitment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: They should do so not only on the basis of the preamble but on the basis of the marginal notes to the clause which refer to the use of Welsh in legal proceedings.
Life would have been made much easier if the Minister had just accepted our amendment. There is an important point here that there should be no difficulty about the operation of legal proceedings. In these amendments we are moving away from the general discussion of the board and the statements of principle and on to the detailed provision which, as the Minister reminded us, is in part a recodification of what was in previous legislation. It is time that the Government got it right and specified it clearly on the face of the Bill.
Viscount St. Davids: As I said, the Government will bring forth an amendment which we hope will meet the noble Lord's requirements.
Lord Elis-Thomas: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s.10 of Juries Act 1974.1974 c. 23
.—(1) Section 10 of the Juries Act 1974 (discharge of summonses in case of doubt as to capacity to act effectively as a juror) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After "understanding of English" there shall be added the words "or (where a trial is to be held in Welsh) of Welsh".").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment which is of great significance. It would entitle a defendant, where the trial of his criminal matter was to be held in Welsh or substantially in Welsh, to have jurors to try him who could comprehend his language.
Clause 21 makes it quite plain that:
"In any legal proceedings in Wales the Welsh language may be"—
and it will be—
"[used] by any party, witness or other person who desires to use it, subject in the case of proceedings in a court other than a magistrates' court to such prior notice as may be required by rules of court".
That means that presently a defendant who is a Welsh speaker is entitled as of right, with no notice given, to go to the magistrates' court and conduct his criminal matter before the magistrates in the Welsh language. No notice is required.
The practical validity of that is, as we all know, that there are many magistrates' courts in many different areas of Wales where the magistrates are wholly familiar with the Welsh language; so are the advocates, the clerk and all participants. That is a much more common experience, if I may respectfully put it that way, than many English people imagine who do not live or work in Wales.
Let us take a practical example. A man is charged with stealing £200. He can go to the Cardigan, Aberaeron or Aberystwyth magistrates' courts and as of right with no notice have the tribunal listen to him conduct his case in Welsh. He can call his evidence and have his advocate act in Welsh. However, if he elects to go to trial on that same charge of theft of £200, he will not have the right to be tried by a jury of his peers who understand his language. We simply say, I hope with care, that that is simply not just. The suggestion put forward in the amendment, which is one of fundamental importance, even though its practical incidence will be limited, is that Section 10 of the Juries Act of 1974 should be amended. Where a summons to attend for jury service has been served, Section 10 reads:
"Where it appears to the appropriate officer, in the case of a person attending in pursuance of a summons under this Act—
in other words, to be on the panel—
"that on account of physical disability or insufficient understanding of English there is doubt as to his capacity to

397
act effectively as a juror, the person may be brought before the judge, who shall determine whether or not he should act as a juror and, if not, shall discharge the summons".
The amendment that we propose is that after "insufficient understanding of English" there shall be added the words:
"or (where a trial is to be held in Welsh) of Welsh".
That would give equal validity to the rights of the Welsh speaking defendant as is given to the English.
After all, there are still people in some parts of Wales whose grasp of English is imperfect, though their grasp of Welsh is excellent. If such a person attends as a prospective juror on the panel, he may well say, "I am not really up to sitting as a juror in English. There are complicated documents. I won't follow them properly because I am much more familiar with Welsh." Then the judge will invariably ask him to stand down if he has not made his request to the appropriate summoning officer.
What is suggested here as elementary justice is that, if a Welsh speaking defendant wishes his trial to be conducted substantially in Welsh, he should be entitled as of legal right to have the same inquiry put to the jury panel: "Are you familiar with the Welsh language? If not, you must stand down." The judge must decide.
That is very important. I readily reiterate that it will not happen very often. But things that do not happen very often can have enormous effect, influence and consequences. If the amendment is not accepted, the words about equal validity and about both languages being official will be exposed as a sham. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I referred on Second Reading to the strong case for empanelling Welsh-speaking juries. I warmly support the eloquent and effective case which has been put by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn.
I believe that the failure to provide juries able to understand Welsh has been a major disincentive to the use of Welsh, especially in Crown Courts. I have read the criticisms and the objections, but I am bound to say that I am not moved by them. I understand that they come in the main from the Home Office. It seems that it fears it would open the gates to a flood of requests for ethnically composed juries. It is difficult to follow the logic of that. The basic difference between Welsh and an ethnic party's language is that Welsh is our native language. Any person in Wales, whatever his ethnic origin, has a statutory right to use Welsh in the courts. Any argument to the contrary flies in the face of the intention and spirit of the Bill; namely, that:
"in the … administration of justice … the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
It has also been argued that the ability of a Welsh-speaking juror to understand a complicated legal argument in Welsh would be insufficient. That, in my estimation, is a somewhat specious argument, bordering on the offensive. The answer which any Welsh-speaking judge who knows his Welsh jury must from experience give is that the ability of a Welsh speaker to follow a complicated legal argument in
398
Welsh is not likely to be any better or worse than the ability of his English-speaking compatriot to understand a complicated legal argument in English. A sensible judge is likely to explain matters in a way that the jury is likely to understand, whether his directions are given in English or in Welsh.
Furthermore, any argument to the effect that juries consisting of Welsh-speaking persons are more likely to bring in perverse verdicts in cases where a party or witness speaks Welsh would not only be inaccurate but offensive as well. It would echo the words of a distinguished Victorian Lord Chancellor, Lord Hatherley, who in 1873 refused to appoint a Welsh-speaking county court judge to the mid-Wales circuit on the ground that an English litigant might think that a Welsh-speaking judge would not be capable of doing justice. In subsequent years, we have proved beyond doubt that Welsh-speaking judges are among the best in the country. I believe that the arguments for this new clause are unanswerable and I appeal to the noble Earl to accept it.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I feel a little embarrassed because every time that I have risen to my feet this evening it has been to oppose an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I rise now with great reluctance because I have great admiration for him as well as pride in having been a member of the same circuit.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will know, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will know even better, that I was engaged many years ago in many cases in Wales where most of the evidence was given in Welsh. I often found when prosecuting in a sheep stealing case in Wales, which I frequently did in North Wales, that most of the evidence would be in Welsh. I never experienced any difficulty at all in those trials. The defendants were given the very best opportunity to defend and justice was obtained in most of the cases that I can think of. I cannot think of a case where there was any degree of injustice.
It was all done through interpreters. In my experience all the courts looked at the 1942 Act quite liberally; nobody was ever prevented from giving his evidence in Welsh. Frequently people benefited from that because, while their evidence was being translated by the interpreter, they had a little more time to think of the best answer. That is how the situation mostly obtains in Wales today: when there is a case with Welsh-speaking witnesses or a Welsh-speaking defendant, the evidence is given in Welsh and one uses interpreters.
The amendment concerns a case that is entirely conducted in Welsh, and that is what is suggested—that there should be Welsh jurors who can speak and understand Welsh and therefore it would be an all-Welsh court. That is ideal and I should certainly like to see that happen in many cases.
However, the noble Lord referred to Section 10 of the Juries Act 1974. I do not have the Act before me but he read it out. The Committee should recognise that that section concerns the discharging of jurors, who have been summoned to attend, in the case of doubt as to their capacity to act effectively as a juror. That is really the point of Section 10.

399
The appropriate officer, who is an officer of the court, is supposed to test a juror to see whether he or she is able to act effectively. It is for cases where there may be a disability such as deafness, illness or indeed if the person is unable effectively to understand English. Of course, most cases are conducted in English and that is why it is part of the Act. When that happens a juror is brought before the judge and it is the judge who discharges that juror—it is quite a ceremony.
The situation envisaged by the amendment assumes that somebody has committed some form of crime in, say, Newport and has chosen to be tried in Welsh. Great arrangements would need to be made in Newport in order to arrange for a case to be heard in Welsh, unless the case was transferred elsewhere. But arrangements would be made. Then one comes to the panel of jurors. It is extremely doubtful in Newport, Monmouthshire, that one would find 12 people to form a panel of jurors who were able to understand a trial in Welsh and who, to use the words of the amendment, were able to "act effectively" in Welsh.
When I was Secretary of State the Lord Chancellor asked Lord Edmund-Davies to investigate the matter of all-Welsh trials. There was one point about which he was absolutely certain: that the random selection of jurors should be maintained. Therefore the situation would not arise of having a case in, say, Newport—where only a few people can speak Welsh—where one would have to keep adding to the panel of jurors until eventually there were 12 Welsh-speaking people. That would be totally contrary to the random selection of jurors which has been with us for centuries and must, in my view, be maintained. Should one change that situation, one would be entering an area of considerable difficulty.
Lord Edmund-Davies said that there had to be simultaneous translation. When one has an all-Welsh court one has simultaneous translation, which means that, even though one cannot understand Welsh, one can receive a simultaneous translation of the evidence and the argument. Therefore an English-speaking juror who was considered to be effective as a juror, would still be able to follow the proceedings and have the capacity to act effectively. The amendment seeks to break down the policy of the random selection of jurors and therefore I wholly oppose it.
Lord Geraint: Amendment No. 45 concerns the main theme of the principle of the use of the Welsh language. Following the excellent speeches on the amendment, I do not feel that it is necessary to add much more to the debate today. However, I should like to endorse what has been said in favour of the new clause, especially by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
We, in Wales, have always had a high regard for justice and fair play. Indeed, we can look back as far as the 10th century to the time of Hywel Dda, the Welsh prince who set out to establish a legal framework that enshrined many human rights unheard of at that time in other parts of Europe. His laws of course were written in Welsh and Latin. Today, this clause asks for an ordinary, basic human right that has already been given to the native English
400
speaker in the Juries Act of 1974. As a Welsh-speaking Welshman I simply ask for that same basic human right; namely, that juries in a Welsh language trial should have an understanding of Welsh just as in an English trial they are required to have an understanding of English.
I cannot see an argument against that. It seems to me to make the law more fair and more just. It gives the Welsh speaker the same rights as an English or non-Welsh speaker in similar circumstances. Can the noble Earl say where is the difficulty in implementing the new clause? The majority of cases heard in Welsh will be in those areas where there are plenty of Welsh speakers to draw from. I am sure that all practical problems can be resolved given the will to do so.
Finally, any Bill that is to gain the support and confidence of the people of Wales must recognise the right of all people of Wales to use Welsh, and place a duty on governmental and other bodies, including the courts, to respect that right.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Again I rise to support what has been said by the lawyers so far in the debate and I follow my noble friend Lord Geraint. In dealing with this section of the Bill we move on from the framework of principle and specific implementation, with which we dealt earlier in the case of the Welsh Language Board, to an area of the Bill where we already have existing language legislation. I do not think it is a matter of insignificance that it was the Welsh Courts Act 1942 that began, as it were, the modern return of Welsh on to the statute book of the Houses of Parliament. This is why the whole issue of the way in which the administration of justice takes place in Wales in relation to the two languages is still an important issue.
This clause, one hopes, affects only a small minority of the population. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, that is not an argument for not ensuring that justice is patently seen to be done for both individuals and for the language group concerned. I appreciate the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, advanced about the random selection of jurors, but I believe that in practice the numbers of cases where this would apply would be limited.
However, we are dealing here with an area of legislation where individual rights are appropriate. I say that because in earlier clauses of the Bill I made it clear that it was not my view that the development of policy in the public services should be based on individual rights, but when we come to the area of the administration of justice and the position of persons who are defendants before a court of law, it is surely there, even in our tradition in the United Kingdom, that we should place an emphasis on the rights of individual defendants.
I am not arguing here—and we shall come to this in my next amendment—about the quality of interpretation. I am not arguing about whether an individual is or is not able to follow precisely what is being said directly. I am arguing about the position and choice of an individual defendant, and that, where a trial is to be

401
held in Welsh as set out in these amendments, the opportunity should exist for it to take place entirely in Welsh.
These are exceptional cases. Often the trouble with language legislation is that exceptional cases become celebrated cases, and injustices are seen to be done even perhaps where injustice is not intended. This is an area where there has been concern, and expressions have clearly been made on the issue that there should be this right. Expressions have come from distinguished members of the Welsh legal profession here this evening and others outside the Committee. The Government have an opportunity now to reconsider the matter. I hope that the Minister will undertake to do so.
Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, talked about the creation of confidence and the right to speak and use Welsh. We are of course talking in this Bill about the right to speak and use Welsh or English, whichever is one's language, in Wales. One is talking about an equality of rights. We have had two examples given to us. We had the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, talking about a situation in a largely Welsh-speaking area where some offence is committed and where practically everybody speaks Welsh and it is easy enough to get a jury composed entirely of Welsh-speaking people. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir has spoken of another example in a largely English-speaking part of Wales where it may be more difficult to recruit such a jury.
The example that springs to my mind is of neither extreme. I was thinking of the constituency I once had the honour to represent where the languages have been happily mixed for centuries; where we had Welsh-speaking people and English-speaking people. I was thinking of the words used by so many in this debate and by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, about the importance of justice being seen to be done and about individual rights. But surely what we are talking about is individual rights to both English-speaking and Welsh-speaking Welsh people. There is the treasured right of people to serve on a jury irrespective of their language.
I am not talking of the great principle of random selection. Nor have I the legal experience of my noble friend or others. I am talking in practical terms about a mixed community. There is considerable merit in a situation where those called to serve on a jury can represent both languages. There is a real hazard, a real danger, that far from building confidence one will weaken confidence in a mixed community. Not on the basis that there is any doubt about the ability of the Welsh-speaking people and not on the grounds cited by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, which seem to have been the curious view of some people in the 19th century, not on any such ground, but simply that if you have an entirely mixed community in which a jury is seen to be selected from one group in that community but not from the other, you will have a cause for divide rather than for unity. You have a destruction rather than a building of confidence.
Simply for that reason, and bearing in mind the extraordinary quality nowadays of simultaneous
402
translation and the effectiveness of the way it has been introduced into the courts in Wales, I would prefer to see the random selection of juries from people who live in the area, people who live in Wales, taken regardless of the language they speak, because that is as important a principle and as important an objective as any other that has been raised in the course of the debate.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I would never claim normally to know better than the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Elis-Thomas, my noble friends Lord Cledwyn, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and Lord Prys-Davies, nor the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, but on one matter I claim to know better than they do, and that is the difficulty of following and working with simultaneous translation from Welsh to English or from English to Welsh over a long period. All the noble Lords whose names I have just given have the inestimable advantage of being fluent in both languages. They do not have to depend upon the crutch of simultaneous translation.
If I were called as a juror in a case to be conducted for the most part in Welsh, I would not feel myself sufficiently confident in the language to do without simultaneous translation, especially if any technical matters were being considered. Simultaneous translation has many drawbacks. It is extremely difficult for someone over a long period—and even 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour is a long period in this case—to keep up the concentration necessary to move from one language to another and to retain accuracy. It requires a high degree of skill. Those people who are competent to do it are very much underpaid.
It is also unfortunately less than perfect. Even the greatest of simultaneous translators are capable of producing less than perfection from time to time. The necessity to use simultaneous translation removes from a juror the ability to hear not only what is said but how it is said. In court proceedings, that surely is often an important part of a case. We should try to do better than simultaneous translation in cases of the kind we have been discussing. We can do better, we should do better, and for that reason I support the amendment.
Baroness White: Can my noble friend explain to me what the position would be in a court where some of the witnesses are not bilingual? You can have your main business conducted in Welsh, but if some of your witnesses are monolingual, or at any rate not Welsh speaking, surely you would have to have some kind of simultaneous translation?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My noble friend is right. In cases of that sort where witnesses are unable to understand, simultaneous translation must take place. My point is that jurors are different from witnesses, and jurors are required to make a judgment on the facts. They must be given the highest priority, and simultaneous translation is not as much use for them as it would be for witnesses who are simply required to listen and understand.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, has criticised the amendment partly on the

403
grounds that it is a breach of the principle of random selection. But if there is such a principle then surely that was breached by the Juries Act 1974. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was rather critical of the amendment on the basis that it would deprive people of the right to serve on a jury. I had always understood that it was a duty to serve as a juror, and that we did not have the right to serve as a juror.
We are seeking to relate the principle implied in Section 10 of the Juries Act to the situation in Wales where the defendant's evidence is to be given in Welsh. The principle is fair and sensible in the English context. Why then do we not also relate the principle to the situation in Wales where the defendant wants to give his evidence in Welsh? Or does the Minister invite the Committee to say that there is to be one rule for the English-speaking defendant and another for the Welsh-speaking defendant in Wales? Without this amendment, that will continue to be the position.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that this amendment is of great significance. It is a very important amendment. I can quite see why those people who have spoken in favour of it have done so because the Welsh language is very dear to their hearts which I understand.
I find it difficult to accept the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that it is all the fault of the Home Office. He can take that view if he likes. I know that there is a kind of flavour of thought which he has on that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, asked: where is the difficulty? There is a difficulty which is that the amendment would be unacceptable because it would interfere with the random selection of juries.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said serving on a jury is not a right but a duty. If the amendment were accepted, the duty would refer only to a certain section of the population, and it would be removed from the rest. We have to be very careful about doing anything which is going to interfere with the random selection of juries.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said that it was a basic human right that jurors should speak in Welsh. It is also a basic system of British justice that jurors should be drawn from the community in which a person is tried. To reduce the area of selection to only those who can speak a certain language would be a great mistake and a change from the principle. There is nothing against the concept of juries being composed of Welsh speakers. What is important is that juries should be compiled, as a result of a random selection, of all those who are qualified to serve. If the jurors for a particular kind of trial are to be selected from a more limited pool, then that must influence the nature of the justice which the courts can administer.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded us of the Welsh-speaking judge in the middle of the 19th century of whom it was said that he was incapable of passing a reasonable judgment because he could speak only Welsh. I believe that we all found that an amazing thing. But that was 100 years ago. It also prompted the noble Lord to say that we have some of the best judges in Wales, and I agree. One of the best
404
judges of recent times was the late Lord Edmund-Davies to whom my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir referred. As my noble friend said, that judge made a report to the Lord Chancellor of the day 20 years ago. It remains one of the most comprehensive investigations of the matter. I remind the Committee of the conclusions of his report because it is important. He said that the use of simultaneous translation equipment was the best means to cater for the interests of Welsh speakers in court cases, and that it was not interfering with the random selection of juries. That would not be the best solution.
There is a duty on all courts to provide simultaneous translation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that it is not as good as if one were totally bilingual and free. The alternatives which one has are either of saying that only those who can speak Welsh are to be jurors—in which case one cuts down the pool from which one can draw—or one says that the pool from which one can draw is as wide as it is in every other condition. It is drawn from all those who are eligible. If some of those are unable to speak Welsh, then they must be supplied with simultaneous translation.
It would be wrong to cut down the pool from which one can draw just to those who can speak Welsh. It is in the interests of British justice that we should retain the pool to be from a wide selection of those who are eligible.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos said that it is all the fault of the Home Office. Most things normally are. But I am not a subscriber to that theory on this occasion. Even the past few minutes have demonstrated with superabundance what a chasm there is between us. It is a great pit of complete non-understanding. I regret that very much. We have done our best to give this Bill every assistance. There is a fund of goodwill towards it. I regret to say that if the Government continue on this tack, they will dissipate the goodwill faster than the dew on a sunny morning.
Perhaps I may attend to all the arguments which have been put forward. The first in sequence was that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. He has had a distinguished career at the Bar on the same circuit as mine. He said that he had conducted trials in Welsh, and that is right. So have I. He said that he found no difficulty and I am sure that he did not. He was not a Welsh-speaking defendant. We heard of our ancient friend random selection. Perhaps we should remind ourselves about the centuries-old tradition of random selection. There was not any. One had to be a householder. One could not serve on a jury if one was a woman. The description of the classic English jury by Lord Devlin was: middle class, middle aged, white and middle minded. It seems to me that that is not very random.
So the centuries-old tradition of random selection does not exist any more than that women could vote before the early part of this century or that one could be on a jury, until relatively recently, simply by being

405
on the electoral register. It is very recently that the random selection of jurors has included persons of the age of 18.
All of us who have practised over the past 25 years have noticed that now jurors are much more representative because they tend to include about half the population; namely, women. This is not an attempt to usurp the random selection of the jury panel. There will be no interference with that. The jury panel will be culled in exactly the same way; namely, at random from those who have filled out their eligibility on the electoral register. It simply means that in a few cases in which the criminal litigation will be conducted substantially in Welsh, the jurors who, as my noble friend Lord Morris has pointed out, are the people who matter in coming to conclusions of this importance, will be able to understand the language of the defendant and the witnesses. I regard that as no more than a simple human right.
It is said that something less will do. It will not—and this is the reason for the bitterness and the disillusion which will grow and grow. This facility and right will be required in rather less than a handful of cases in any given year. If it is a right to be tried for theft by the magistrates in Welsh, why is it not also a right to be tried by the jury on the same issues in Welsh, possibly even in the same town?
Arguments about Newport will not do. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, knows as well as I do that trials are frequently transferred from one area to another. If I have read the paper correctly, a trial deriving from Liverpool is being tried in Mold at the moment. It is commonplace that trials are moved for various reasons.
Some of us who have heard arguments of varying quality put against this have come to the unhappy conclusion that the true reason (never expressed) for not having Welsh-speaking jurors is the fear among some that Welsh-speaking jurors will be more ready to acquit in politically-tinged cases. I wish that those who felt that had the courage of their ignoble convictions.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He has made quite the most unjustifiable attack upon anyone who happens to take a contrary view. I went particularly out of my way to say that there is a dilemma here between, on the one hand, taking those who are unable to speak Welsh and having a wider pool and, on the other hand, taking those who can speak only Welsh and drawing from a smaller pool. To suggest that anyone says, "Let us keep the original system because if it is all in Welsh those who ought to be convicted will be acquitted", is to make a most disreputable suggestion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did not ascribe that to the noble Earl and I was careful not to do so. I said that I would deal with every argument that has been put and that I was turning—I said this specifically—to what a number of us who have discussed these matters know and believe to be the facts. I did not ascribe this to the noble Earl. If I had wished to do so—if there had been any justification for it—I should have said it
406
plainly because I prefer to speak plainly. I am not ascribing it to the noble Earl. I am saying that there is a distinct feeling that this is part of the motivation in some people's minds. Even if it is unjustified, that feeling adds to the bitterness that people feel about this matter. There is no doubt about that.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again and will not do so any more. He rightly said that he did not ascribe that feeling to me—and I did not suggest that he did ascribe it to me. However, he did say that he was going through the various arguments and he will agree that that argument was never mentioned.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely agree. I made that quite plain which is why my preamble was, "I now turn to things which are never expressed". I repeat that I am not ascribing that to the noble Earl who, although we have known each other for only a relatively short time, has always treated me with every civility and courtesy, and I hope that I have reciprocated.
I am saying that the feeling that I have mentioned is a cause of distress and bitterness. I do not believe that there is anyone who has anything to do with the prosecution of offences in Wales who has not heard that expressed. It may be right; it may be wrong; but that is the belief of many people. What is being said here is that it is acceptable to discharge potential jurors because they are not familiar with English, but that it is not acceptable to discharge potential jurors because they are not familiar with Welsh.
I beg the Government at least to think again on this matter. We do not agree on everything. There is no perfect symmetry between us, but we do agree that this is an opportunity to do good work. We want to do that. I hope that all of our approaches have been constructive, but the Government will throw all that away. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Provision of interpreters]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 23, at end insert ("on an annual basis").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the argument for the substance of the amendment, if not its wording, has already been made in that the Government have clearly indicated that at least at this stage they are not prepared to reconsider the basic principle of the ability of jurors to be fluent in Welsh in a small number of cases. I very much regret the way in which that matter was approached. It means that in taking that approach the Government are relying absolutely on the technical quality and competence of the interpretation that takes place in the courts in Wales.
As we have already heard—I do not need to rehearse the history of this—the late Lord Edmund-Davies produced a report which brought about the beginnings of effective simultaneous translation. I am old enough to remember the days when ministers of religion would undertake part-time translation in the courts, but those days are long long past. We now

407
have a profession of interpreters who are very effective. Clearly, if the quality of the justice administered depends on the effectiveness of the interpretation, that interpretation needs to be adequately catered for. The interpreters need to be effectively trained and properly remunerated. That is the purpose of this amendment. I hope that the Government can accept the spirit of it, if not the wording. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: Although I do not find this amendment desirable, it does give me an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the interpreters on whom the effective use of the Welsh language in the courts to a greater part depends.
I understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department has, since the passage of the 1967 Act, taken a number of measures aimed at improving the standard of simultaneous translation available. I am sure that the experience so gained will in future be valuable for a number of other branches in the public sector which we envisage making greater use of Welsh.
Having said that, I do not believe that we would gain very much by the inclusion of this amendment. I am sure that, in determining payment for these services, the Lord Chancellor has regard to suggested rates published by the Treasury. These are uprated regularly, and I am sure that the Lord Chancellor takes account of this.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said and want to follow him on one particular point; namely, the importance of the development of simultaneous translation not only in the courts, but also outwith them and, as he said, throughout the rest of public life. If the Bill is to be successful in other areas of its objectives, the effectiveness and quality of simultaneous translation generally is something to which we need to turn our attention. It is certainly something that the board will want to pursue.
Although I have not so far appeared in a Crown Court and have not therefore benefited from simultaneous translation there, while attending conferences the length and breadth of Wales in recent years, I have observed that it is now almost the accepted norm to have simultaneous translation. Its quality is often as high as one would expect to find at conferences on mainland Europe. We need to pursue that and to ensure that it remains the case. My information is that relatively recently the remuneration of translators was not what might be desired, but that it has recently been increased. In celebrated and important cases there can be interpretation both ways: from Welsh into English, and from English into Welsh. It is important that remuneration for that work should be adequate.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am reminded that there is general dissatisfaction about the remuneration of court interpreters. Unless the Minister is prepared to reflect further about the amendment, it may well be something to which we will return at a later stage. I
408
join the Minister in paying tribute to the interpreters. The quality of the translation is essential. This may well be a matter which needs further reflection.
Viscount St. Davids: As I have said, I am sure that simultaneous translation will play a much greater part in public life in Wales than it has hitherto but we should leave the payment for those services to the Lord Chancellor's Department. I shall ensure that the Committee's comments and the relevant parts of Hansard are brought to his attention.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am aware of the improved training work undertaken by the Lord Chancellor's Department, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Powers to give Welsh names to statutory bodies etc
(".—(1) Where a name is conferred by an Act of Parliament on any body, office or place, the appropriate Minister may by order confer on the body, office or place an alternative name in Welsh.
(2) Where an Act of Parliament gives power, exercisable by statutory instrument, to confer a name on any body, office or place, the power shall include power to confer alternative names in English and Welsh.
(3) This section shall not apply in relation to a name conferred on any area or local authority by the Local Government Act 1972, or to any power exercisable under that Act").
The noble Earl said: It is the Government's intention that all future legislation setting up statutory bodies serving Wales should confer a name upon that body in English and in Welsh. There are however a large number of existing bodies in Wales whose names are in English only. The amendment would allow Ministers to give those existing bodies an alternative name in Welsh. Where a power to confer a name on a body has already been granted, but is to be exercised in the future by order, the amendment allows the order to specify alternative names in English and Welsh. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The amendment is more important than it may appear at first instance. The principle of the Bill is to ensure that both languages are treated on a basis of equality. The perception of that equality in the use of the Welsh language to name public bodies is an extremely important principle. If one looks at a check list of simple do-it-yourself bilingualism and how one extends a use of a language, the logo, name, design and the title of public bodies are important places to start. So I am pleased at the recent trend.
I must be careful because I have been criticised outside the House for being too supportive of the Government on the Bill. I am not being supportive of the Government; I am being supportive of what I believe to be a relatively good Welsh Office Bill. The Welsh Office, especially in recent years, has adopted Welsh titles for organisations such as Tai Cymru and CADW, and so on. Although we may disagree with

409
the policies of such organisations, the public perception of them as Welsh-based organisations is improved. It also encourages the private sector to follow by good example. There were times when only a organisation called Plaid Cymru used a Welsh-speaking title in Wales. It seems that now everyone is following that practice; so I warmly welcome the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: From these Benches we also warmly welcome the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful. I cannot but tell the Committee how delighted I am that I can satisfy your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Powers to prescribe Welsh forms]:
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 9, line 27, leave out ("enactment") and insert ("Act of Parliament").
The noble Viscount said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 57 and 58. These are basically drafting amendments. I should be happy to explain them to the Committee if it so wishes. The Committee may find that unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("enactment") and insert ("Act").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: There is a question I should like to address to the Minister, but I am not sure if it should come under Amendment No 49. I was hoping that the Minister would elaborate a little so that we could study his words. If the Minister is not in a position to give me an answer this evening, I should be content if he would let me have a reply before Report and place a copy in the Library.
According to my count, about 70 prescribed forms have been produced under Section 2 of 1967 Act. A Minister cannot be required to provide a Welsh language or bilingual version of a prescribed form. More Welsh language versions have been produced over the past few years than was formerly the case. What are the criteria to which the Secretary of State has to have regard in deciding whether to issue a Welsh or bilingual version of a prescribed form? I should be grateful if the Minister could throw light on that matter.
Viscount St. Davids: I do not think that I can throw any light on it at the moment; but I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("enactment") and insert ("Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 10, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) This section shall not apply in relation to a provision which—
410

(a) confers, or gives power to confer, a name on any body, office or place, or

(b) requires specified words to be included in the name of any body, office or place.").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 51, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. The amendments allow industrial and provident societies and credit unions to adopt the Welsh versions of their names if they so desire. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We welcome the amendment. Industrial and Provident societies in Wales have for many years been pressing for these modest amendments. The societies are popular in Wales. We have many such societies in agriculture and in the industrial valleys of South-Wales. Many of the welfare halls in South-East Wales are registered industrial and provident societies.
However, I wonder whether the reform goes far enough, unless we have an indication that the Secretary of State contemplates using the power under Clause 24 to issue a Welsh language version of the many prescribed notices which can be served under the 1965 Act. What are the Secretary of State's intentions in that respect?
There is a further point. There is no provision in the 1965 Act for registering a society whose constitution is written in Welsh. I am aware of a number of societies whose constitution is written in Welsh. We have failed to register the constitution in Welsh under the 1965 Act. Some of my comments may apply equally to credit unions, except that they are not as common in Wales as industrial and provident societies. Subject to that question, I am happy to welcome the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: It is not the Secretary of State's intention to make those organisations change their name. The purpose of the amendment is to allow them to adopt Welsh versions of their names if they so desire.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thought that we were addressing Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the response that I gave was correct. However, I shall study Hansard and I shall communicate with the noble Lord and try to put him at his ease.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Provisions supplementary to section 24]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 10, line 26, leave out from ("The") to end of line and insert ("powers to make orders under sections (Powers to give Welsh names to statutory bodies etc)(1) and 24(2)").
The noble Earl said: This and Amendment No. 53 are two further drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 and insert:
("(4) References in sections (Powers to give Welsh names to statutory bodies etc) and 24 above to an Act of Parliament include references to Acts passed after this Act; and in those sections "the appropriate Minister" in relation to any Act means—

411

(a) in the case of provisions for the execution of which in Wales a Minister other than the Secretary of State is responsible, that Minister, and

(b) in any other case, the Secretary of State.

(5) Any question arising under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) above shall be determined by the Treasury; and in that subsection").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Industrial and provident societies
.—(1) Section 5 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 (name of society) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for the words from "the word" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the last word in the name of every society registered under this Act shall be "limited" or, if the rules of the society state that its registered office is to be in Wales, either that word or the word "cyfyngedig"".
(3) In subsection (5)—

(a) after the words "contain the word "limited"" there shall be inserted the words "or the word "cyfyngedig"",

(b) for the words "that word" there shall be substituted the words "either of those words", and

(c) after the words "that the word "limited"" there shall be inserted the words ", or in an appropriate case the word "cyfyngedig",".").

After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Credit unions
.—(1) Section 3 of the Credit Unions Act 1979 (use of name "credit union", etc) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), there shall be added at the end the words "or, if the rules of the society state that its registered office is to be in Wales, either those words or the words "undeb credyd"".
(3) In subsection (2), after the words ""credit union" or" there shall be inserted the words ""undeb credyd" or".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Repeals and consequential amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 11, line 6, leave out from ("Schedule)") to end of line 9 and insert ("—

(a) for "2(1)" there shall be substituted "24";

(b) for "1967" there shall be substituted "1993"; and

(c) for "enactments" there shall be substituted "Acts of Parliament".").

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
Page 11, line 15, leave out ("enactments)") and insert ("Acts)").
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("enactments."") and insert ("Acts of Parliament."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert:
("() In section 3(2) of the Charities Act 1992 there shall be inserted after "shall be stated in English" the following words ", or in Welsh within Wales,".").
The noble Lord said: We have dealt with amendments which the Government propose to enable companies and provident societies and other
412
organisations to be on a legal basis in their use of the Welsh language. Both this amendment and Amendment No. 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, seek, in different areas, to do the same in respect of charities. My understanding is that under the Charities Act 1992 it is not legal to use a Welsh form of words. My amendment would allow them to do so and I ask the Government to consider it. I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare: As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, my amendment is grouped with his and covers the same ground but it is slightly more restrictive. The noble Lord's amendment covers any charitable organisation in Wales whereas mine is restricted to Welsh charities working wholly in the Welsh language. The kind of charities which I have in mind are those such as Merched y Wawr, which has 300 branches and 5,000 members, the equivalent of the English Women's Institute, or the best known Welsh youth movement, Urdd Gobaith Cymru, which has 12,000 branches and 45,000 members. Those charities find it odd that working in the Welsh language, they have their headed notepaper in Welsh but then have to put in "registered charity" in English. That does not seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. Although it is a small point I hope that my noble friends will look upon it favourably. Here are two excellent amendments to which they could choose to agree and they would send us away happy.
Earl Ferrers: It is legal for a charity's name to be in Welsh but it must also be in English. In other words, charities may use Welsh if they so desire. The reason for this provision in charity law is to ensure that people dealing with charities are aware of that fact since in certain circumstances it can affect their legal rights. Therefore, it is important that a declaration that the charity is a registered charity should be readily understood by all those coming into contact with the charity.
Neither of these amendments would provide the necessary safeguards on that score but perhaps I may consider the matter further before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am glad of that sentence because it seems absurd to have to follow elusen gofrestredig with the words "registered charity".
Lord Prys-Davies: Many Welsh organisations would find it offensive to have those words on their headed paper or on circulars seeking donations. I understand that there are about 110 charities which would come within the definition contained in Amendment No. 60. Therefore, we are talking about a considerable number of Welsh charities which operate in the Welsh language and would find it offensive to have to reproduce their designation in English. However, I fully understand the mischief which the appropriate section of the Charities Act seeks to address. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would look again at this.
Earl Ferrers: We certainly do not wish to do anything offensive and I shall look at the matter to see whether we can overcome the problem.
Lord Elis-Thomas: In view of the inoffensive nature of the noble Earl's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) (Amendment) Order 1993
7.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) (Amendment) Order 1993 is made under the European Communities Act 1972 and amends that part of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which relates to the automatic recognition of scheduled qualifications in veterinary surgery obtained in other member states.
The change is procedural and is required to meet our Community obligations, as set out in Chapter 4 of Council Directive 89/594/EEC on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
By way of background, I should like to explain that Section 6 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act enables the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to regulate who should be entitled to be registered to practise veterinary surgery in this country. In 1978, the European Community introduced measures to enable the automatic recognition of prescribed qualifications in veterinary surgery and allow the free movement of veterinarians between member states. Minimum training standards were introduced at the same time.
The Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1980 implemented these measures in the UK by giving a veterinary surgeon, who was a national of a member state and held a recognised qualification in veterinary surgery, the right to be registered to practise in the UK and, accordingly, become a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
The draft order before the House makes provision for the registration of a holder of a qualification which was formerly recognised but has been replaced. It sets certain conditions and the holder must produce a certificate to the effect that the qualification is regarded by the awarding member state as equivalent to the recognised qualification; and that training has
414
been in accordance with Council Directive 78/1027/ EEC, which is known as the Training Directive. The draft order also takes account of minor changes which relate to the titles of veterinary qualifications and the awarding bodies in Greece and Spain.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and other interested organisations have been consulted and are content. Indeed, the Royal College is already implementing the change administratively. Currently there are about 15 veterinarians from Greece and about 45 veterinarians from Spain registered to work in the UK.
I reiterate that these changes are procedural. They do not represent a lowering of standards and I am satisfied that the requirements safeguard fully the level of professional expertise we expect in the UK. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liverpool Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993
7.21 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the essence of the housing action trust, known as the HAT, is a good working relationship between all interested parties. Particularly important is the role of the tenants, who have to be willing to vote for the HAT to enable it to go ahead. That depends on a full process of consultation before the ballot and of participation afterwards in the work of the HAT. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that all this has been fully reflected in the Liverpool proposal.
The Liverpool HAT designation order is the third to come before the House. It is different from the first two HATs in Hull and Waltham Forest in that it deals with a type of housing spread throughout the city of Liverpool rather than a particular geographical area. That type is the tower block. In all, Liverpool City Council currently manages 71 tower blocks built between 1958 and 1971. In July and August, tenants voted on the HAT proposal on a site-by-site basis. Tenants in 67 blocks on 35 sites, comprising some 5,300 homes, voted in favour. Tenants in four blocks voted to stay with the council.
The effect of the order will be: to designate the curtilages of the 67 tower blocks on 35 sites together with an additional seven areas of council land which will be needed for rehousing purposes; and to establish the housing action trust for that designated area. The HAT may require a small number of further parcels of land in private ownership. The HAT will be consulting with the owners about these sites and, if necessary, we will return to the House with amendments to this order.
The priority for the Liverpool HAT after designation is to continue the preparation of

415
proposals for its capital programme, and to prepare for the formal transfer of properties. We expect that to be at the end of the summer.
I hope your Lordships will recognise the essential role of housing action trusts in tackling the very worst problems in the local authority stock and I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 25 minutes past seven o'clock.

  INTELLIGENCE SERVICES: DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIA
  INTELLIGENCE SERVICES: DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIA
  MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE PROPOSAL
  MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE PROPOSAL
  UKRAINE: SECURITY ASSURANCES
  UKRAINE: SECURITY ASSURANCES
  WEAPON DESTRUCTION IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
  WEAPON DESTRUCTION IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
  INDEPENDENT LIVING FUND: DELAYED APPLICATIONS
  INDEPENDENT LIVING FUND: DELAYED APPLICATIONS
  DIRECTORATE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS: PRIVATISATION
  DIRECTORATE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS: PRIVATISATION
  METROPOLITAN POLICE CORPORATE STRATEGY
  METROPOLITAN POLICE CORPORATE STRATEGY
  HOME OFFICE: CASH LIMITS
  HOME OFFICE: CASH LIMITS
  ATTACK HELICOPTER PROCUREMENT
  ATTACK HELICOPTER PROCUREMENT
  ATOMIC WEAPONS ESTABLISHMENT
  ATOMIC WEAPONS ESTABLISHMENT
  BICYCLES: STATISTICS
  BICYCLES: STATISTICS
  BICYCLISTS' FACILITIES
  BICYCLISTS' FACILITIES
  WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  JUNIOR MINISTERS: PRIVATE OFFICE STAFF
  JUNIOR MINISTERS: PRIVATE OFFICE STAFF