Sitting of 8 February 1993

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

    Concessionary Fares (London)
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of discussions between the London boroughs and the transport operators regarding the London concessionary fares scheme for 1993–94.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I understand that the boroughs have reached agreement with London Transport and British Rail to continue the existing scheme for 1993–94.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister realise that, year after year, there is anxiety about the scheme and the way in which the Government leave it to be funded in this rather ad hoc way? If we are not to pay a decent pension, we need to have a decent concessionary fares scheme that elderly people believe, with conviction, will continue and not be subject to the vagaries of local authority funding from year to year.
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the arrangement enshrined in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 allows precisely for that to happen. It provides that the boroughs agree a scheme with London Transport every year. In the event that they do not, a reserve scheme, which is in the Act, comes into effect. That means that, each year, the boroughs and London Transport, as they have done this year, reach a straightforward settlement.
    Sir John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of the scheme is now in excess of £120 million a year for the 32 London boroughs, that it may disproportionately be taken up by the better off and that it costs over 20 per cent. of each of the 32 London boroughs' social services budgets? Is not there a case for giving elderly people a better choice about how that money is spent?
    Mr. Norris: I note what my right hon. Friend says, but he will agree that the principle that underlies the present arrangements is that the boroughs, in concert, should agree whatever scheme they believe to be appropriate. Having done so, the scheme is agreed with London Transport and the reserve scheme operates only in the event that they are unable to come to an agreement.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that questions such as that asked by the right hon. Member for Westminster,
    666
    North (Sir J. Wheeler) greatly concern people who benefit from the scheme in London? Can he ensure that, in any discussions that take place, no restriction will be placed on the way in which people can travel throughout London, irrespective of where they live, and that that right will continue?
    Mr. Norris: We made it clear that we intend to give the boroughs the right to continue to operate a concessionary fares scheme. The content of that scheme is entirely a matter for the boroughs, but the hon. Gentleman will note the agreement that has been reached this year, of the details of which, as in other years, he is well aware.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks and congratulations of all my pensioner and disabled constituents who are delighted that the scheme is going ahead for another year? Will he also accept my regrets at the way in which every year certain groups, whose motives are to be questioned, say that the scheme is threatened, thereby worrying pensioners? Is there any chance of the scheme being agreed a little earlier in the coming year? That would be welcome.
    Mr. Norris: I am sure that I do not deserve my hon. Friend's thanks, but I am grateful for gratitude from whatever quarter it comes. As for timing, the length of the negotiations is a matter for the boroughs and London Transport. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that it is the existence of the reserve scheme, which comes into effect if the boroughs fail to reach agreement, which has ensured that they reach agreement by the stated date.
    The boroughs are well seized of the importance that the elderly attach to the scheme. I am sure that in future, in a deregulated bus market, the boroughs will want to continue to provide the facility that is now available and to pay for it as they do at present.

    River Transport (London)
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve transport in London by river.
    Mr. Norris: I recently announced the formation of the River Thames working group which, under my chairmanship, will study the potential for developing freight and passenger traffic on the river and identify the scope for private sector improvements.
    Ms. Hoey: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the river is vastly underused as a form of public transport for Londoners. Will he congratulate London Riverbus on managing to put together another deal that means that it can survive for a little longer? Does he agree that the only way in which we shall see the river used by Londoners is to bring river transport within the London travel network card?
    Mr. Norris: It is precisely because I agree with the hon. Lady that we should fully exploit the potential of the Thames—not only for passengers, but for non-time sensitive bulk cargo, tourism and so on—that the working party has been established. I am glad that London Riverbus appears to have its funding in place for the rest of the year. It has, of course, always been a private sector initiative. It is supported now by private bodies because they recognise that it has marketing potential.

    667
    The hon. Lady will know that the present access arrangements are based on the concept of revenue forgone. Given the high operating costs of London Riverbus, the management accepts that a straight transfer to the travel card would be impracticable. It has raised the issue with me on several occasions and I know that it attaches importance to the matter.
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will know that the Thames is the northern boundary of Dartford constituency. Apart from separating Kent from Essex, it is a greatly underused resource. Does he agree that if more freight and commuter traffic could be moved on to the river, congestion on the roads would be reduced enormously in south-east London?
    Mr. Tony Banks: Stand up for Essex.
    Mr. Norris: To respond to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary invitation to stand up for Essex, I can say only that I can think of better uses for the Thames than keeping us in Essex away from the good people of Kent. For what it is worth, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) is entirely right. About 40 per cent. of London's domestic waste, for example, is transported down the Thames by barge. That means that every day literally dozens of heavy lorry movements do not take place, with the result that some of the congestion on our roads is relieved by river transportation. We want that potential to be exploited to the full.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister's River Thames committee consider the proposal to have on the river a floating heliport that could move around 22 sites between Battersea and the Thames barrier? Apparently it would need no planning arrangements or agreements, so implementation would be a matter for the Minister. If he knows about the proposal to have 4,000 annual civil flights and 400 military flights, will he tell us more about the 400 military flights? Will they be by helicopter gunships to ensure that the unemployed are following up the workfare scheme?
    Mr. Norris: I know of that proposal and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that several aspects of it seem bizarre to say the least. It clearly cannot be right that the facility should be provided ad hoc. It is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I assure him I share. I shall make sure that the project is fully explored by the Government before it is taken further.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the river service that will shortly start between Gravesend and Canary Wharf. Let us hope that it will extend further to central London and even to Speaker's Steps. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure proper access to pontoons up the river into central London and, indeed, the provision of further pontoons because it is absurd that constituents who commute cannot use this magnificent 20-lane motorway into central London?
    Mr. Norris: I welcome the new ideas that are being advanced to expand use of the Thames, especially long-range use from areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency into central London. The working party was
    668
    set up to investigate access to wharves, quays and pontoons and to ensure that, where possible, the Government consider all the possibilities.

    Birmingham Northern Relief Road
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the Birmingham northern relief toll road on congestion on the M6 motorway.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): It is estimated by the concessionaire, Midlands Expressway, that, on opening the tolled Birmingham northern relief road, M6 flows between junctions 4 and 11 would be relieved by about 28,000 vehicles per day of through traffic.
    Mr. O'Brien: Was not the Birmingham northern relief road originally scheduled to relieve congestion on the M6? It now seems that the Government may be considering whether to toll the M6 after the widening that is due to take place towards the end of the 1990s. Are the Government now considering a general policy whereby motorways may be tolled if they have been modernised or widened?
    Mr. Carlisle: The Birmingham northern relief road stands on its own merits; it is a much-needed road. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are issuing a Green Paper on the financing of roads and the implications for the Birmingham northern relief road will be considered as part of the wider consultations. The new relief road to the north of Birmingham is critical for traffic not only around Birmingham but in the north-west and on local roads in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, such as the A38 and A446, which are over-congested because of crowded conditions on the M6.

    Tankers
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made since 5 January to the International Maritime Organisation, regarding the safe routing of tankers in British coastal waters; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): Since 5 January, three meetings have been held at which International Maritime Organisation officials were present. In addition, there has been a substantial discussion at the emergency Transport and Environment Council in Brussels. We expect shortly the Commission's communication on marine safety, for which we have been urgently pressing. I hope that this will be discussed at the next two Transport Council meetings, which may lead to further representations to the IMO.
    Mr. Wallace: Can the Secretary of State clarify the position that emerged after last Thursday's meeting, which was chaired by his Department and involved a number of bodies involved in shipping? Can he confirm whether it is intended that the Pentland Firth and the Fair Isle Channel will become a no-go area? The Braer may have been observing the voluntary ban within a 10-mile radius from Shetland. The key is not necessarily a ban but proper monitoring of shipping using those channels. What

    669
    assessment has been made of radar surveillance in British coastal waters? Will the right hon. Gentleman take forward these proposals to the IMO?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am willing to listen to various suggestions that we might wish to take to the IMO, including the outcome of Lord Donaldson's inquiry. As a result of last Thursday's meeting between tanker owners and operators and my Department, provisions are being drawn up for a code of voluntary restrictions on tankers operating in sensitive areas such as the two that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It will be a voluntary code, because to have a compulsory code it is essential to work through the IMO, which is why I have always stressed the need to reach agreement in the IMO. Radar surveillance all round our coast would be extremely expensive. We must, therefore, carefully consider the cost benefits. If one tries to introduce directions as a result of monitoring it could have implications for international law.
    Mr. Adley: In welcoming the announcement that my right hon. Friend made about the meeting last Thursday, may I ask him to press on with his discussions with our Community partners? Does he agree that the Community is in a very strong position to exercise significant influence in the IMO and, as member Governments are likely to be more responsive to environmental concerns than a rather remote body such as the IMO, is not it a good opportunity to take our policy further?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is the point. If we are to get agreement on further measures at IMO level, which has never proved particularly easy or quick, the more agreement we achieve in the European Community on measures that could be urged there, the better. That has been the purpose of our discussions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that the United Kingdom took a leading part in those discussions in January, as it did when it was president in the previous six months. Indeed, we were commended for the action that we took during the Braer incident.
    Mr. Prescott: Although the House will welcome the Secretary of State's statement about moving towards some statutory control of the routings of vessels through that area, does he accept that the problem is that rogue operators and rogue ships take no notice of statutory enforcement or codes and that the only effective measure that they recognise is the possibility of getting caught? First, has he approached Norway and Russia about asking such ships to deposit their route movements with them when they pick up their cargoes? Secondly, it is nonsense to suggest that we have to wait for the IMO to get radar coverage in that area. Radar coverage is absolutely essential and the Government should decide to implement it now as the best form of deterrent.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I did not suggest that we needed IMO approval to have radar surveillance. I said that it involved substantial costs and that we should consider the cost benefits of implementing it all round the country. The hon. Gentleman was wrong on the first point, but, on the second, I agree that the tightening of port state controls, including the issue to which he referred, is certainly one of the most effective ways to bring pressure to bear on substandard ships. That is why we have given it high priority in the United Kingdom, where 30 per cent. of
    670
    ships are now subjected to port state control—that is way above the target—and where the number of ships detained has increased substantially in recent years. I agree that it is important to target more and that is an issue which we wish to take up internationally.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: There will be a general welcome for getting in place as many voluntary measures as possible, but does my right hon. Friend agree that to achieve the reduction there must be risk assessment? Would not it be a good idea to have radar surveillance in some of the most environmentally sensitive areas and the video recording of movements so that experts can consider what should be part of the voluntary agreement and what we should be asking for on a statutory basis later?
    Mr. MacGregor: I see the point of it when there are benefits to be gained for the cost of putting such a system in place. That is why we have it in the Dover straits, where there are significant benefits. My hon. Friend's second point can be considered in the context of the Donaldson inquiry, although, even in that case, there could be implications for international law if one wanted to follow up the surveillance with positive measures.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is little benefit in removing tankers from the Minches if the new rule takes them within four miles of the coastline of the Outer Hebrides? Will he therefore urgently consider surveying a new route 40 to 50 miles from the coastline?
    Mr. MacGregor: The question of alternative routes, especially in extremely bad weather such as that during the Braer incident, is very much part of the arrangements that might be made and I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is considered.

    Road Building
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the response has been to the future road building programme as announced in the autumn statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: The 41 new scheme starts, costing over £1.3 billion, which I announced last Thursday have been widely welcomed by the construction industry and road users, as were the 41 local road schemes that I announced in the transport supplementary grant settlement last December.
    Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is correct in assuming that the construction industry will welcome the increase of thousands of jobs? We hope to hear a welcome from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), too. Above all, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the replacement for Poole bridge, which is desperately needed in my constituency, maintains its place in the programme and goes ahead as promised?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of my announcement last week for jobs in the construction industry. Next year, the programme will involve as many as 30,000 jobs in the industry. I was not surprised that there was hardly a welcome from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when I made the announcement. There is no doubt that

    671
    the record programme is good not only for jobs, but for the economy in terms of improving our road communications.
    On the Poole harbour crossing, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that there will be public consultation in the spring. Following that, we shall press ahead with the scheme, although the completion date will depend on satisfactory progress through the statutory processes and, of course, on the availability of funds when those processes are completed.
    Mr. Harvey: Is the Government's objective in proposing a Green Paper on road tolling to alter patterns of road use for environmental reasons or to raise revenue for the Treasury? If the objective is to raise revenue, is not it a bit steep to charge taxpayers to use roads for which they have already paid? If the objective is environmental, should not the revenue go to public transport?
    Mr. MacGregor: We are pursuing environmental purposes in many ways in the road programme. As I said last week, next year we shall spend £2.2 billion in terms of capital investment in public transport. Given that 90 per cent. of passengers and freight now go by road, the figure compares favourably with the £2.9 billion of capital investment in roads.
    One of the key issues in the Green Paper is that, to ensure that by the end of the century and beyond we do not have congestion on our motorways and principal roads, we may need to consider additional sources of finance to get the programme completed as quickly as we can. Even given the record programme of road building through taxpayers' funds, the main purpose of the Green Paper is to see whether private finance can augment public finance. I stress that it will be a Green Paper.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this programme is both helpful and exciting for the construction industry? I hope that he will continue with the programme beyond the present proposals. Will my right hon. Friend concentrate more of the effort in urban areas? In towns such as Reading there is major congestion. Will he also ensure that the planning process does not slow the development of such roads?
    Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, if my hon. Friend looks at the public expenditure programme announced last autumn, he will see that we are maintaining a high level of road building in years two and three. There is a concentration on the urban question—I know that this does not affect my hon. Friend—both in the considerable expenditure in London in next year's programme and in the substantial number of bypasses that are now included in the road programme.
    On planning inquiries, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the amount of time that we take to go through the public consultation and public inquiry processes before we can start building a road. I am studying the issue carefully to see whether we can speed up the process in a way that is compatible with maintaining the rights of individuals.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State offer any experiments on road pricing and tolling? Does he accept that the Government raise three times more in road tax than is spent on road transport? Does he accept that that
    672
    means a double whammy, in that he is trying to find a new tax to pay for the debt that the Government have imposed on this country and on its economic development?
    Mr. MacGregor: That has to be nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not have hypothecation of taxes in this country. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should put more money into the road programme without considering the questions that will be raised in the Green Paper, does that mean that he has now abandoned the charge that he sometimes makes that we do not have a level playing field between road and rail?
    Mr. Burns: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend a way in which his Department's budget on road building would be saved and in which expenditure could be diversified to please many of my constituents? If my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to cancel the appointment of the consultants who are studying the proposed new M12, for which nobody has asked and which no one wants, and if he used the money for other more important road projects, such as upgrading the A12 from the M25 to Chelmsford, he would kill two birds with one stone. He would please my constituents and improve road communications to the hinterland of East Anglia and to Chelmsford.
    Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend has said. That point of view has been pressed on me by other hon. Members from the same part of the country. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will be visiting Essex shortly to consider those issues and I am sure that he will also take into account what my hon. Friend has said.

    A1 (Ferrybridge)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it remains his policy for the route of the A1 to pass through Ferrybridge in West Yorkshire under the upgrading scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I announced the preferred route for the proposed A1 motorway between Redhouse and Hook Moor on 1 December 1992. The route passes to the west of Ferrybridge away from the built-up area. At present, detailed scheme design is under way.
    Mr. O'Brien: Why is the Minister being so unfair and unkind to the communities in Ferrybridge and Pontefract which will border the new motorway? Why is he unconcerned about the health of the children at Ferrybridge junior and infant school, which will be near the motorway? Why is he indifferent to the people and communities of Ferrybridge and Pontefract by not allowing the motorway to go around their towns and communities, as happens in so many other areas? Why is the Minister being so uncharitable to those communities?
    Mr. Carlisle: I know that the hon. Gentleman lives very close to the preferred route, but we believe that it is the best route. If we opted for the alternative route to the east of Knottingley, the journey would be much longer. Over the years, that would cost the country tens of millions of pounds more. However, there will be a public inquiry into the scheme and local communities and everyone interested in the road will have a full opportunity to put their views, which will be heard by an independent inspector. The upgrading of the A1 is truly important to the economy of

    673
    the whole of the east of the country. We plan to upgrade the road to motorway standard between the M25 and Newcastle over the next 10 years. That is much needed.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of all of us for the care that he is taking with regard to the upgrading of the A 1 and the careful planning of the M 1-M62 motorway? Will he take into account the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) for the communities beside the road? Those fears are becoming increasingly important.
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is very important that roads are designed with great sensitivity and, wherever possible, are removed from communities. There are now much better techniques to achieve that. In addition to earth mounds, we now have the real prospect of much quieter surfaces such as porous asphalt. We shall be using porous asphalt for the first time in a commercial contract in the coming year. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) for the way in which he represents the concerns of his constituents. He will be coming to see me very shortly about the M1-M62 link.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: When will the Minister upgrade the Al in Northumberland, where there has been carnage over the years and deaths galore? I remind the Minister that Northumberland is in England, and not in Scotland——
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the A l in the area of Ferrybridge and West Yorkshire.
    Mr. Campbell: It goes on from there.
    Madam Speaker: I realise that; it starts much further south as well. I call Mr. Stephen to ask Question 9.

    Shipping Accidents
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken at the International Maritime Organisation to improve compensation arrangements for shipping accidents.
    Mr. MacGregor: The United Kingdom took a leading role in the adoption in 1992 of protocols ensuring higher limits of liability in the event of an oil spill. We are also doing so in the development of the convention to ensure high levels of compensation in the event of a chemical spill and in other ways.
    Mr. Stephen: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about compensation, our principal concern must be to prevent the accidents from occurring in the first place. In relation to the English channel, which is of particular concern to my constituents, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is adequate radar surveillance of that very busy shipping lane and that if a vessel is seen to be contravening the rules for navigation in the English channel it will he contacted immediately by radio and that other ships will also be contacted by radio to warn them of the danger?
    Mr. MacGregor: I confirm that that is the situation in the English channel. The traffic separation scheme, coupled with radar surveillance, has been effective in reducing the level of accidents in the area by more than 85 per cent. It is relevant to have that there because of the
    674
    high level of traffic through the Dover straits. Where there is evidence of a contravention of the rules, appropriate follow-up action will be taken by the Department, which may include prosecutions.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is crucial to have a unified approach to maritime safety? Why do we have to keep waiting for disasters such as the Braer and the disasters that we have seen in the English channel? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may be doing with the International Maritime Organisation in respect of the new oil compensation proposal, is it not the case that we may have to wait three years for it to be fully ratified by the eight necessary states? When will he do something about ship safety? When will he increase port state control? When will he make public the results of port state control? When will he do something to save the British merchant fleet, which has the best safety record of all?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is not desirable simply to wait for disasters such as the Braer before action is taken. That is why we have been pressing for a considerable time along a wide range of fronts, but one needs the involvement and co-operation of other organisations, and countries around the world, if one is to achieve effective results. I accept that when there is a disaster it gives an extra spur to obtaining that agreement.
    We have been tightening port state control, and I should certainly like that to be done very strongly elsewhere. It is producing effective results. I should be happy to give the hon. Lady the figures if she would like to table a question.

    Piracy
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking, both nationally and internationally, to combat piracy, in particular in far eastern waters.
    Mr. Norris: We are about to publish comprehensive advice to British ship owners and crews on dealing with piracy and armed robbery. Through our embassies and high commissions, we have ensured that littoral states in areas where attacks occur are aware of our concerns. At the request of the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organisation, we shall be sending two experts to work with the IMO piracy working group which is to visit south-east Asia in March.
    Mr. Waterson: I welcome my hon. Friend's prompt actions in respect of international piracy, but will he continue to give the highest priority to avoiding incidents such as the attack on the Baltimar Zephir, which resulted in the deaths of the British captain and the chief officer?
    Mr. Norris: We have made clear to the Indonesian Government, through our embassy in Jakarta, our very great concern at Captain Bashforth's murder on the Baltimar Zephir and our expectation that their investigation into the incident will be thorough and its results made known fully and speedily.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister recognise that transport piracy comes in many forms? Does he recognise the extreme concern that is felt today by railway pensioners as a result of reports that £4.25 billion——
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are talking about piracy on the high seas in far eastern waters. That question is a long way from the mark.

    Network SouthEast (Performance)
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the latest performance statistics on the south-western lines division of Network SouthEast.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): For the year ended 29 January 1993, the south-western lines managed to achieve an average performance which was above their targets for 1992. Peak punctuality was 90.9 per cent. and reliability was 99.5 per cent. That is a credit to staff and management.
    Mr. Taylor: Would my hon. Friend like to know that there is unrestrained enthusiasm on the 10 stations in my constituency about the prospect of the south-western lines division being franchised? That enthusiasm will be maintained so long as the contract that is let to the franchisee observes better performance standards then those currently obtained and safeguards the commuter lines such as those which pass through my constituency.
    Mr. Freeman: We are grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for franchising, particularly the south-western lines. It would be our intention that the private sector franchisees adopted even higher standards of punctuality and reliability to monitor their own performance.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is it not a fact that the franchising that the Minister and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) welcome will jeopardise branch lines such as those operating from Chessington, Hampton Court, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Esher, the Chertsey branch line, and many other branch lines throughout the Network SouthEast area? Are they not in jeopardy, along with many intermediate stations?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he believes The Guardian newspaper that there is likely to be a threat to a substantial part of the network through franchising. The hon. Gentleman would be wrong: there is nothing in our proposals that jeopardises at all either branch lines or existing main routes.
    Ms. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that standards of punctuality on the Network SouthEast route to Hastings are such that British Rail is paying a 5 per cent. reduction? Is he further aware that BR appears to be planning a reduction of seats on the fast trains in the new summer timetable? Will he consult British Rail and alert it to the distress and anger that my commuters feel about the appalling service that they receive from British Rail, which is leading to their approval for the franchising of the British Rail line?
    Mr. Freeman: I will certainly reflect my hon. Friend's concerns to the chairman of British Rail, but it is a matter for British Rail at present to determine the services that it provides and the fares for its services. Under the franchising system, the franchising director will require a commitment to a certain level of service, especially in the peak, and he will control fares in Network SouthEast.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies there are in the Crown prosecution service in Greater London.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Crown prosecution service in Greater London and Surrey has vacancies for 49 lawyers out of a total requirement of 499, and for 100 support staff out of a total requirement of 1,428.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that large number of lawyers means that cases can come to the courts more quickly? Is it not then offensive to many people for the courts to impose ridiculous sentences such as the recent £500 fine which was imposed on a rapist when a damned good hiding might have been more appropriate?
    Sir Derek Spencer: I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General expects to receive the papers in that case quite shortly so that he can decide whether the sentence appears to be unduly lenient. He will take his decision on the matter carefully and within the 28 days allowed to him by statute.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Solicitor-General aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and many people in the country at large, find it difficult to understand the sentence—or rather non-sentence—imposed on the person responsible for rape? Is it not important that it should be clearly understood that rape is a vile crime and will be punished severely by the courts and that what was done in that specific case serves no purpose whatever in making it clear that rape is a vile crime?
    Sir Derek Spencer: It was precisely to enable my right hon. and learned Friend to deal with the deep sense of misgiving to which the hon. Gentleman referred that we changed the law on this subject and gave the Attorney-General power to refer sentences which appear unduly lenient.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the restructuring of the Crown prosecution service.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): On 1 April 1993, the existing 31 areas of the Crown prosecution service will amalgamate to form 13 new areas. The aim is to improve communication between the areas and headquarters, to lay emphasis on the CPS as a national service, and to enhance the responsibilities of chief Crown prosecutors and their role in management.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Does he agree that it is important that more time be given to experienced lawyers to have a personal involvement in the more serious cases with which they are dealing? Will the changes go any way to enhance that and bring it about?
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Yes. Two of the advantages of the changes will be, first, that chief Crown prosecutors will be given a bigger role in the central management of the service

    677
    as a whole and, secondly, that it will free senior lawyers to do case work on the important and complex cases with which the CPS now deals.
    Mr. Fraser: Can the Attorney-General confirm that he will carefully consider facilitating the CPS to argue before the Court of Appeal that the sentence in the Newport Crown court rape case was inadequate? Will he therefore give the Court of Appeal an opportunity to give some guidance about the sentencing of juveniles, as there has been a great deal of concern about the kind of sentences that juveniles have received for serious crimes?
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt my decision before I have seen the papers and the factors that impinged on the mind of the learned judge in that case, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look carefully at the matter and that, if the case is referred, it will give the Court of Appeal that opportunity, among others.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies for the Crown prosecution service there are in the county of Hertfordshire.
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown prosecution service currently has a full complement of 48 lawyers in the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire area. It has one vacancy for support staff out of a total requirement of 80.
    Mr. Evans: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that all prosecutions are being undermined by punishments not fitting the crime? Does he realise that, apart from the recent rape case, there are many cases of crimes such as joy riding and so on which the nation feels should be punished properly? When will he stop pussyfooting about and get on with it?
    The Solicitor-General: We do not pussyfoot around. We refer many cases to the Court of Appeal when we believe that there are grounds to say that the sentence is unduly lenient.

    Matrix Churchill
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to receive a report on the outcome of the inquiry on Matrix Churchill.
    The Attorney-General: The time scale required to complete the Matrix Churchill inquiry is a matter for Lord Justice Scott. He has made it clear that he wishes to report to the President of the Board of Trade as soon as possible.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is it not the case that Lord Justice Scott is currently still reading the papers and has not even spoken to witnesses yet? On that basis, are we not unlikely to have a report before the autumn? When the matter was first raised, the Prime Minister assured the House that he would not allow the inquiry to prevent parliamentary questions from being answered, but are not Ministers in fact refusing to answer legitimate questions to which the British public have a right to answers? If British Ministers have acted improperly, they should not continue in office until the report is completed.
    The Attorney-General: There are three questions there. I repeat the assurance that Government Departments will give full assistance to Lord Justice Scott. He has already
    678
    received about 30,000 documents. Obviously, they take a good deal of time to read and to assimilate. He then proposes to hear the evidence. I understand from a press release that he proposes to hear the evidence largely in public. It will then be for him to consider his conclusions.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the restructuring of the Crown prosecution service.
    The Attorney-General: I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
    Mr. Waterson: I welcome the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend a moment ago. Does he agree that the restructuring will produce a more streamlined and effective service to bring to book both serious and less serious criminals in the rising ride of crime that we face at present?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the review, coupled with the recent improvement in recruitment in the Crown prosecution service, should play a significant part in helping to reduce delays in the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not ironic that people who defraud social security to the tune of, say, a couple of hundred pounds a year in most circumstances, are caught and tried while the Crown prosecution service somehow manages to miss the people who make a small fortune out of City fraud? Why is it that the Crown prosecution service allowed Ernest Saunders to get away with most of his sentence? Why did it say that Roger Seelig, who now runs a business, could not continue his trial because of "nervous exhaustion"? Now he is making a big pile. If the Government want to deal with crime, they should start with the big people at the top—their Tory friends.
    The Attorney-General: There are two answers to the hon. Gentleman. The first and specific answer is that both the decisions to which he referred, as I should have thought that he realised, were judicial decisions made after careful argument in open court. The second answer is that, in addition to the work done by the Serious Fraud Office, which handles some 50 to 60 large cases a year, the Crown prosecution service handles some 800 to 900 major fraud cases a year. The revised format of the service should also assist in that.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Attorney-General what was the level of recruitment to the Crown prosecution service in Lancashire in 1991 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General: In 1991 the number of lawyers in post in the Lancashire and Cumbria area of the Crown prosecution service increased from 66 to 67. The number of support staff fell from 90 to 88. In 1992, the number of lawyers increased to 76 and support staff to 113.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the ways in which we can improve the standards of the Crown prosecution service and avoid miscarriages of justice such as the recent Newport Crown court low sentence for rape, which has

    679
    caused so much outrage, is to ensure that Crown prosecution service lawyers and other employed barristers are given rights of audience in higher courts, to ensure that they have the standard of training in advocacy to enable them to present cases in the public interest and to the best of their abilities?
    The Solicitor-General: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and he will no doubt take into account the principles laid down in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 when he considers whether there is any need for increased rights of audience in the Crown courts.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    European Community
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of United Kingdom aid is given via the EC; and whether he expects this to change in the next five years.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): In 1991–92 approximately 20 per cent. of British aid to developing countries was provided through the EC. During the period up to 1996, covered in the Chancellor's autumn statement, this proportion is likely to increase, but it is too early to make predictions.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of concern among aid agencies that as the European Community's aid budget increases, there will be a corresponding reduction in the bilateral aid budget, and that since bilateral aid is one of the most effective ways to dispense aid, and the EC is one of the less effective ways, that is a cause for concern?
    Mr. Hurd: I have seen the Christian Aid statement to which the hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring. Of course, it is true that part of our aid is multilateral, since it goes through the European Community or the United Nations and its agencies. It is important that multilateral aid should be as effective as we can help to make it, but it all runs together. For example, the programme in Bosnia of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is financed partly by the European Community, which is the largest single contributor, and partly by programmes such as our own, but it all goes to the same purpose.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the principle that he laid down in a speech two years ago—that non-humanitarian aid to developing countries will depend on their human rights record? Will he consider the question of non-humanitarian aid to Ghana and Indonesia, as the latter annexed East Timor five years ago and is oppressing the population there?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, we apply that principle and my hon. Friend knows of examples where we have done so, especially in Africa. I have nothing to say about aid to Indonesia, but I was in Ghana recently and think that President Rawlings needs and deserves encouragement, in particular because of his economic policy and his proclaimed intention of opening the door to consultation with the opposition.
    Mr. Meacher: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify his policy of cutting the aid budget to Africa
    680
    substantially in real terms during the next three years while sharply increasing aid to eastern and central Europe? How does he justify using aid moneys to pay exorbitant consultancy fees to the former Soviet Union this year, and to justify the press release issued by the Overseas Development Administration this week with the headline, "Britain gives £1.5 million to help with Polish mass privatisation"? We have always known that the Tories never favoured aid in the first place, but is that not the most dishonest and disreputable distortion of the aid budget that can possibly be imagined?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member is hopelessly out of date. He cannot have been in eastern Europe lately. The know-how fund has been one of the most successful forms of British aid in recent years. Because of the success of our privatisations, the sort of programme that the Poles and others most desperately require from us is help with theirs —they are after privatisation and not nationalisation.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rules governing aid from the European Community are no less stringent in relation to human rights? In that context, what pressure is the Community, as well as Britain, able to exert on the Government of Sudan to ensure that the record on human rights in the south of that country meets the requirements of those rules?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend, and this is something on which we agreed in the Community. Alas, we have felt bound to suspend virtually all our aid to the Sudan, except humanitarian aid, in an effort to show that country that its present record on human rights and good government in general is not acceptable either to us or to our friends.

    World Bank
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to take to increase the accountability of United Kingdom representatives to the World bank to the United Kingdom Parliament.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The World bank is accountable to its shareholders, including the United Kingdom. The Government are accountable to Parliament for payments made to the bank as part of our overseas aid programme.
    Mr. Denham: Does the Minister accept that the World bank, through its structural adjustment lending and project lending, has a far greater influence on the policies of many developing countries than our own inadequate bilateral aid programme has? In the light of that and of the recent Wappenhams report, "Inside the World Bank", which showed that more than half its projects are failing in social, environmental and economic terms, is it not a disgrace that the House has virtually no opportunity to discuss what the British Government are doing in the bank and the changes that we may seek to make to it? Would the Minister consider having an annual debate in the House on the policies of the World bank, which should include prior discussion of the main policies that the Government intend to follow in that institution?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The purpose of questions and debates in the House of Commons is to make the British Government accountable. The hon. Gentleman can initiate a debate if he wishes. If he wishes to know about actions by the British Government in support of environmental considerations, he need only take note of our opposition to the Narmada project in India, where we have taken an extremely robust line. We have made it clear that there must be great progress by April on environmental and other matters of resettlement if funding is to continue.

    Somalia
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British aid workers are currently estimated to be working in Somalia; what is the nature of their work; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Many British and international relief agencies operating in Somalia employ British nationals in a wide range of activities, but it is impossible to estimate their numbers.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British contribution to the relief effort in Somalia is quite outstanding in economic and personnel terms? Will my hon. Friend particularly commend the wonderful work of Sean Devereux and other aid workers? Will the increased numbers of British forces enable some troops to go to Somalia to defend aid workers where appropriate?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. Operation Restore Hope, in which the United Kingdom has provided tremendous assistance, has, with the United States initiative, been a terrific success. In terms of financial assistance, we are the third largest bilateral donor to the relief effort in Somalia; more than £40 million worth of relief has been committed in the past 12 months. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the great courage of aid workers in Somalia, including Sean Devereux. I am afraid that only today the deaths of a further five Red Cross employees were announced.
    Mr. Mandelson: Did the Minister happen to read the excellent article in Friday's edition of the Financial Times by Mr. Nicholas Hinton, secretary general of the Save the Children Fund? He drew attention to the terrible shortcomings of the United Nations and its agencies in dealing with disasters such as that in Somalia. What steps have the Government taken to co-ordinate with United Nations personnel the much-needed improvement in the
    682
    performance of the United Nations and its agencies to overcome the shortcomings which are so glaringly obvious?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman will know, at our instigation a new co-ordinator has been appointed by the United Nations Secretary General and we wish him well. We fully recognise that when the United Nations takes over the operation from the United States that it must be properly funded.
    Mr. Lester: Can my hon. Friend give us any idea of our involvement with the United States in planning what will happen when the United States forces withdraw? Many aid agencies, although they have supported the United States intervention in the current situation, are very concerned about what may happen when the forces withdraw.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is essential that a clear plan is drawn up for the handover of responsibility from the coalition forces to the United Nations when the former leave. Discussion about that is currently under way and, as I have said, we are pressing for the United Nations to be fully resourced.

    Kenya
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government about aid policies.
    Mr. Hurd: I last discussed aid and related issues with President Moi in Nairobi in September. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is in Nairobi today. She is talking to President Moi and others about a number of issues, including aid.
    Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind that last month, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), the Government said that new balance of payments assistance was being withheld pending political and economic reforms in Kenya, and bearing in mind that the political reforms have taken place as a result of the election, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects the Government to restore new balance of payments assistance?
    Mr. Hurd: That will depend largely on how the International Monetary Fund gets on with its review of economic reform.
    I was glad to hear what the hon. Lady said about the elections. We support the Commonwealth observers' conclusion, but we hope that President Moi will now reach out a hand to the opposition parties there, try to heal the wounds and re-emphasise his stand in favour of unity and reconciliation.

Public Expenditure Reviews
3.31 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Portillo): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about public spending. The Government are committed to a rigorous approach to public spending. We set out in our manifesto for the last election our objective of reducing the share of national income taken by the public sector. As part of that, on 14 May last year, following a discussion on public spending, the Cabinet decided that, once the 1992 public spending round was completed, I should be commissioned as Chief Secretary to conduct a long-term exercise involving in-depth reviews of the public-spending programmes of each Department of State. It was anticipated that the reviews would take much of the period of this parliament to complete.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned the exercise in a speech last week. He noted how easy it was for the state to settle into habits of spending that outlast their purpose and outrun their budgets.
The exercise will require Secretaries of State in each Department to conduct searching studies of their programmes in co-operation with me. The process will start this year with four of the largest programmes. The Departments involved are the Home Office and the Departments of Health, Education and Social Security. The particular aim is to distinguish clearly between the essential costs of high priority spending, which we will continue to fund, and avoidable spending which we cannot afford.
Over the course of the Parliament, we shall be looking at the direction that spending on every programme is taking, and at whether its purpose remains right for the 1990s. We will be seeking to identify areas where better targetting can be achieved, or from which the public sector can withdraw altogether.
These fundamental reviews are not a substitute for the traditional process of public expenditure control; rather, they are intended to reinforce it. Their focus will be on the medium to longer term, although our aim is that their provisional findings should inform the next spending round in the summer.
Making progress towards our fiscal objectives requires us to exercise tight control over public spending. We have an absolute duty to ensure full value for money for the taxpayer from the £250 billion that we spend each year. We shall fulfil that duty.
Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that this is no ordinary review—that it is quite different from the normal Treasury overview of spending? Although he says that the review was originally intended to last the whole Parliament, will not the provisional findings of the review start hitting spending plans as early as this summer?
On what basis has the right hon. Gentleman chosen the four Departments? What are the criteria? Given that the Departments that he has selected cover our police, our schools, our hospitals and pensions, people will want to know now what options are being contemplated. What is up for grabs in this extraordinary review?
Given that the right hon. Gentleman has stated that there are areas of spending and investment from which the
684
public sector can withdraw altogether, will he tell us which services, which benefits and which investment plans are under consideration as those from which the public sector can withdraw altogether? Which are "high priority" and may survive; which are only "a priority" and will therefore be doomed?
Who will be consulted before these decisions are taken? What is the process? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the election promises made by the Prime Minister were not only to raise child benefit in line with inflation but to maintain the levels of public services over the whole Parliament?
Is not the real reason for this extraordinary statement nothing to do with the fact that the Government want a genuine and open review of the efficiency of public spending, but rather a panic response to the Government's economic mismanagement—in particular, to the appalling levels of unemployment, costing £9,000 for every unemployed person?
Will not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be wholly wrong if the British people, who are already suffering in the recession, ended up paying the price in terms of worse policing, worse schools and worse health care—not to mention lost pensions and lost benefits? Should not the price of the recession and economic mismanagement be paid by the Government who caused them?
Mr. Portillo: I fear that the hon. Lady has not adopted the measured tone required by this subject. I will be happy to answer her questions, however.
Is this review quite different from what has gone before? It is a substantial review; it will cover the whole of this Parliament; it will cover every Department. It is different from what happens in every public expenditure round, but it will not be the bitter and vicious cutting exercise that the Labour Government went in for.
The hon. Lady wants to know whether there will be results as early as this summer. There may be some; I am asking for preliminary conclusions. She asked how the Departments were chosen. They are the largest Departments, with the exception of Defence, and Defence underwent a review quite recently, entitled "Options for Change".
The hon. Lady wants to know what will be included and what excluded. She should understand that at this stage we are asking questions. There is no point in asking questions if one knows the answers. As to what will be included and what excluded, perhaps I can use the following words:
"We should be prepared to re-examine everything. I've not ruled anything out of court."
Those were the words used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, to describe the social justice commission that he has established.
It is extraordinary of the hon. Lady to ask me about manifesto pledges. Yes, they stand. We honoured them in the autumn statement. She is in an extraordinary position. Yesterday, she helped to build up a bonfire of the Labour party's manifesto pledges, which were then set alight by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). The pledge to nationalise water: gone. The pledge to renationalise electricity: gone. The tax rises in the shadow Budget: gone. Yesterday, the Labour party was urged by its leader to think the unthinkable—unfortunately, the hon. Lady was not included among the thinkers.

685
The party to which the hon. Lady belongs set up a Commission for Social Justice, a no-holds barred review. A party that is afraid to question is a party that is afraid to govern. A party that, in setting up the social justice commission, is willing to ask these questions, but then attacks our party for asking them, is a party that does not know its bottom from its elbow.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this fundamental review will be welcomed not only by Conservative Members but by the financial markets, providing that it produces a sensible medium-term strategy for public expenditure that will take us to the end of the Parliament and beyond? Is he further aware that one of the structural problems of public expenditure, which must be addressed, is to improve the balance between transfer payments, which have, on the whole, been growing too fast and programmed expenditure on investment in such matters as human capital in education and training, which needs to grow faster?
Mr. Portillo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend far his well-phrased remarks. I appreciate the ready co-operation of my right hon. Friends in this exercise, some of whom are with me on the Treasury Bench. At the weekend, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said:
"I welcome the Prime Minister's review of public expenditure. Of course we have to look into every corner to root out waste and make sure we use taxpayers' money as efficiently as possible. This means taking tough decisions about priorities."
Priorities are exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) spoke about, and I agree with him, as I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The country thinks that the Chief Secretary's main job is to keep public expenditure under review all the time. Therefore, his announcement should not be a great surprise. His review will not be welcomed, but will be looked upon with fear and suspicion by the country, unless he gives certain assurances. He must give the assurance that the review will be public and open and not private; that it will aim at rebuilding Britain's economic prosperity; and, above all, that it will have as its objective a reduction in the appalling gap that has widened between the rich and the poor in Britain, and which has been the most damning legacy of the past 14 Tory years.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is nothing surprising about a Chief Secretary indulging in a review of public spending. We have to do that, and in May we announced that it would have two legs, which are the annual rounds and this further review covering the entire Parliament and each Department in turn.
The Government have an obligation to undertake such a review, because we are responsible for the spending of taxpayers' money, and in sorting out our priorities we must carry out this internal exercise. My right hon. Friends are conducting the exercise and are, of course, free to take what advice they wish from outside. This is basically an exercise for the Government to decide their own priorities. A central point is that the review is directed towards recovery. If the Government took an increasing
686
share of the nation's resources year by year, it would have a devastating effect on the wealth-creating sector, and we must be concerned about that.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend is right to remind the House that he would be negligent if in his important position he did not have public expenditure under review at all times. Will he note that the provision of health care free at the point of delivery is cherished by rich and poor alike, and that any erosion of that principle would be deeply resented throughout the country?
Mr. Portillo: Yes. I think that my hon. Friend well knows, as does the whole House, the real and absolute commitment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. She would not have endorsed in such generous terms the necessity for this review if she did not strongly believe that money can be saved in the health service and that there are ways to provide better care and more money to patients. That is very much the object of the exercise.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister gave as his excuse for not including the Ministry of Defence the fact that a review of defence had already been undertaken. Have not huge changes been undertaken in the health service following review, and has there not been review after review of education to pretend that something is actually being done about the appalling standards? How on earth can the right hon. Gentleman justify leaving defence out? And is the Treasury to be part of the review, as it is the Treasury that has got us into the mess that has necessitated it?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman must not get upset. I assure him that all Departments will be included in the review, which will take much of a Parliament to complete. We must begin somewhere, and I have begun with four large Departments, taking account of the fact that Defence has recently been reviewed. That is not to rule out the possibility of looking further at what is done within the Ministry of Defence as conditions in the world change. All Departments, including the Treasury, will be reached in due course.
Sir Giles Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the commitment to undertake the review and to do so thoroughly. Is it not odd that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) should seek to ask so many questions when she does not want to have the facts before she seeks the answers? My right hon. Friend must be able to obtain all the information that he needs. Will he make it clear that, although he wishes to see certain results available during the year, the review must be sufficiently thorough to ensure that the results are sustainable in the longer term? In other words, he must not rush it.
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. The important thing is to get the right answers over a period, and that will take a long time. However, it is reasonable to ask for some perliminary conclusions around the early summer, so that they can inform the public expenditure survey that begins at that time. The review will go on. I can do no better than to quote the Leader of the Opposition:
"I've set up the Social Justice Commission in order to conduct a very wide-ranging review of the whole complex

687
system of tax, benefits, rights of peoples'…We haven't looked at any of this, almost since Beveridge. There's been no thorough examination, that's what we're going to do."
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Ms. Diane Abbott: The Chief Secretary spoke earlier about the state settling into habits of spending. Will he bear in mind the fact that the old-age pension is not a charitable dole from the state? People pay in for their pension all their lives, and most of our constituents, whether they vote Conservative or Labour believe——
Mr. Simon Hughes: Or Liberal Democrat.
Mr. Tony Banks: Not many of them do that.
Ms. Abbott: Most of the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House believe strongly that, when people retire, after having worked all their lives, whether in the marketplace or in the home, they are entitled as of right to a decent pension. They should not have to beg or go asking for charity. That is the principle behind a universal pension. The Chief Secretary tampers with the principle of a universal pension at his peril.
Mr. Portillo: I have never said that I would tamper with the universal pension. The person who has said it is the Leader of the Opposition. He said:
"We must be prepared to examine in an open-minded way some of the fundamental features of our approach. What is the right balance between universal and selective benefits?"
The hon. Lady's argument is not with me but with those on her own Front Bench.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that throwing resources at a problem is not always the answer? Sometimes the answer is good management and sometimes it is good work practice. We are not talking about the Government's money, because the Government do not have any. It is the taxpayers' money, and we are the custodians of it and have to use it wisely. There is nothing wrong with selective benefits as long as they are targeted on those in need. What is wrong with that? The Opposition will always cry, "Means testing." They mean, "Don't let's get it to those in need."
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. Only a fool could possibly believe that, in £250 billion-worth of public spending, every penny is as well spent as it could be. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said the other day:
"we cannot tolerate a drugs bill that is rising at around 12 per cent. per year, four times the rate of inflation, especially when staff are being asked to settle for no more than 1·5 per cent."
We need to examine such issues, and I cannot understand why the Opposition are opposed to such questions being put.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: When the Chief Secretary is looking at education, will he consider the effects that some of the so-called reforms have had? Is he aware that a two-tier system is developing in many of our constituencies? When he is considering the targeting of money, will he reflect on the £225,000 in grants that went
688
to one opted-out school in Halifax, while the other 109 schools had to share £200,000? Is that the fair education in which he is supposed to believe?
Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and his predecessors are warmly to be congratulated on moving the numbers of those in higher education from one in eight to one in four, and on planning over the next three years a 25 per cent. increase in those who will receive further education. The initiative that the Government have taken towards the development of grant-maintained schools has been enormously important in providing schools with pride and independence as well as ensuring value for money.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend be willing to extend this excellent review to cover agriculture, especially when we observe that last month the cereal mountains broke all established records, despite the fact that we are spending a fortune on set-aside? Will the Government be willing to consider postponing the implementation of the Maastricht treaty, bearing in mind the fact that the treaty will cost the taxpayer a huge sum on top of the £2·6 billion net that we are paying this year?
Mr. Portillo: There are no plans to postpone consideration of the Maastricht Bill. I can assure my hon. Friend that the consideration of agriculture will be reached in due course. Much of the spending on agriculture derives directly from commitments under the European Community's common agricultural policy. For that reason, it is important that we ensure that we use money to best possible value in all the areas in which we have discretion, and that we bring pressure upon our European Community partners to ensure that the CAP is reformed and improved so as to provide better value for taxpayers across Europe.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that nothing is sacrosanct in this review? Are we to understand that even the amounts and rules of entitlement for the attendance allowance, the mobility allowance and other disability benefits will be included in the review? If so, how much consultation will the right hon. Gentleman be having with the organisations of and for disabled people?
Mr. Portillo: I quoted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who said that nothing could be ruled out. That is a sensible basis on which to embark on conducting a review—otherwise we omit things and we find that we are driven down alleys, with the result that extremely important matters are excluded. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had it absolutely right. It would be improper of any Opposition Member to seek to start scare stories on the back of the review, especially when the Labour party is pledged to examine things fundamentally.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree with me that, as a society, we might have moved a little too far from the old-fashioned virtues of looking after our families and observing our own responsibilities? Does he agree also that it is essential that we do not continue to tax the business community, as only it can provide the jobs that will eventually provide an improvement in incomes for all those who need it?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I believe that the original objectives of the social security system were to encourage people into independence—in other words, to leave dependency. That is very much in our minds. It seems from the tone that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition took that it is very much in his mind too. My hon. Friend does well to remind us of that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: A small amount of Home Office money is spent on encouraging the basic democratic right of electoral registration. Will the Government ensure that, following the review, expenditure on electoral registration is increased, so that this democratic right is encouraged and developed? Or is it the case that the only chance that the Conservative party has at the next general election is to be gained by not spending anything on electoral registration, so that as few people as possible are on the register?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is writing a bidding letter at the beginning of a public expenditure survey. I do not think that there is much prospect of him being in government and in a position to do that. I do not think either that this is the time for totting up a list of the things on which we would like to spend more. The review that I am announcing is designed carefully to examine the effectiveness of the way in which we spend the money to which we are already committed over the public expenditure survey period of the next three years and beyond.
Mr. Barry Porter: I welcome this statement, but observe that it is about time, too. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no sacred cows in this review? The main objection to the community charge was that a duke paid as much as a dustman. It always struck me as illogical that the converse was not equally open to objection—that the duke receives as much as the dustman: no sacred cows, if you please.
Mr. Portillo: I think that all my hon. Friends are joining me in wishing to ensure that the money that is allocated is spent effectively. As the Government are spending billions, one must conduct a pretty thorough review and get clown to the nitty-gritty of the way in which money is spent, in order to ensure that it is spent as effectively as possible. My hon. Friend is right to think that nothing should be ruled out from the scrutiny of value for money and the effectiveness of delivery.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the budget of the local authority in Coventry has been cut by about £180 million in the past 10 years? Is it not time that he stopped rolling back the welfare state and conducted a proper review to bolster the welfare state and local government in particular?
Mr. Portillo: My memory from my time as Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is that local government was getting not less from year to year but more. Local government is facing challenges about how it will meet the targets and budgets that are laid down in the standard spending assessments and capping limits. Both
690
central and local government should be willing to organise their priorities and take tough decisions, because at present we have limited resources and the economy has not been growing. We have to be sensible and responsible about how we spend taxpayers' money.
Sir Anthony Grant: I welcome tight control of public expenditure, but will my right hon. Friend disregard what the Leader of the Opposition said about pensions—he does not know what he is talking about anyway—and please bear in mind the fact that an increasing number of elderly people have based their declining years, the last few years of their lives, on the present figures? They are not in a position to make drastic changes at this stage of their lives, and they do not expect to be let down. Will he please bear that in mind in the review?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend does well to caution me about quoting the Leader of the Opposition too much. I was stimulated to do so by the responses of those on the Labour Benches. We must adhere to our important manifesto commitments to pensioners. People make provision years in advance for their retirement—I do not wish to be deprived of any contribution that I have made to my pension—so these are important issues. I stress that we are looking at medium and longer-term reviews. At some time, however, somebody must consider the way in which public spending is developing, and be willing to take serious decisions about that.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Minister recall that 5 million people were bribed by the Government to desert the certainty of the state pension scheme for the lottery of personal pensions? Many of those people—probably 1 million will lose unless somebody tells them they should go back into the state scheme. The Government are not telling them, and certainly the pensions industry is not doing so. Millions of people see national insurance as a future that offers certainty and safety, but the Government are now offering them a future that holds nothing but fear and insecurity.
Mr. Portillo: The previous Labour Government were involved in an extreme important and helpful pensions reform—the establishment of supplementary pensions. That has been carried forward by the Government to offer people choice. People will have a supplementary pension whether they are contracted into the state scheme or contracted out into personal or occupational schemes. It is extremely important that people make provision for their retirement over and above the state pension. We are obliged by our manifesto to make attractive to all ages the contracting-out route, but people can remain part of SERPS if they so choose.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: We must now move on. [Interruption.] Order. I am not bound to give my reasons for moving on, but let me make two comments. First, the House must know that we are bound to return to these issues at a later date. Secondly, we have before us an important debate on the Principality.

Local Government Finance (Wales)
3.59 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 412), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the next motion on the Order Paper:
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1993–94, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State has set out the basis on which the debate is to be conducted. Is it true that this afternoon, in answer to a written question, he will publish the costs of local government reform? If so, does he not think that we should have that information, so that we know the full parameters of the debate?
Mr. Hunt: I anticipate today sending to the local authority associations and publishing the Touche Ross report on the transitional costs of local government reform but that is not a matter to be debated today. There will be an opportunity to debate the report. I am not responsible for the business of the House, but I shall do my best and use my best endeavours to ensure that there is proper opportunity to discuss the report.
Today we are dealing with the local government finance report, which contains my decisions on the local government revenue settlement for 1993–94. The relevant notional amounts report sets out the amounts in lieu of budgets for 1992–93 which I propose to use in measuring budget increases in 1993–94 for the purpose of applying the provisional capping criteria which I announced to the House on 14 December. It may be convenient for the House if I deal first with the settlement proposals.
As the report states, I propose to set the total standard spending, or TSS, for the next financial year 1993–94 at £2,599.8 million. That includes the £35.9 million in additional resources which has already been announced for the new responsibilities that local authorities will assume for care in the community from 1 April 1993.
Mr. Barry Jones: Many of us believe that the right hon. Gentleman has given our councils a very poor deal over care in the community. Community care involves some of the most vulnerable in our society, not least the elderly and the disabled. There is concern in my constituency about services in the new financial year at the Melrose centre. Is he prepared to visit the centre, which does magnificent work but which will suffer serious cuts in the new financial year unless he can give the county a better deal than he is to announce today?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member will agree that it is for the local authority to determine its priorities. I have just announced confirmation of an allocation of £35·9 million for those additional responsibilities. As I recall, Clwyd county council will receive £6·6 million out of that £35·9 million. At the end of the day, it must be for the local authority to determine its priorities. I shall come to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I shall ensure that the figure for Clwyd county council is checked, although I believe it to be £6·6 million.
692
In addition to the £35·9 million is a further £1·6 million in resources in respect of changes to the independent living fund arrangements. Those additions to spending are fully funded by central Government through aggregate external finance or AEF.
The TSS for 1993–94 also takes account of the transfer of responsibilities for further and residual higher education services to the Welsh funding councils and of the phased transfer of school inspection functions to the Office of Her Majesty's chief inspector (Wales), all from 1 April this year. The TSS represents a 3·1 per cent. increase on the level for 1992–93 when allowance is made for the education-related functional adjustments. The increase is slightly higher—3·5 per cent.—when the additional community care resources are taken into account.
I propose to set aggregate external finance for 1993–94 at £2,344·2 million. That is an increase of 1·7 per cent. on the level of AEF for 1992–93, again after allowing for education-related functional adjustments. The level of increase is slightly higher when the additional community care resources are taken into account. The AEF package comprises, as the House may recall, three elements, including revenue support grant and distributable non-domestic rates. The RSG is £1,669·3 million, and distributable non-domestic rates amount to £470·2 million. There are specific and supplementary grants of £204·7 million. The Welsh non-domestic rate poundage for 1993–94 will increase by 3·5 per cent. in line with inflation at the appropriate time to 44p.
In setting AEF for the coming year, I have had very much in mind the point made to me by the local authority associations—that the proportion of revenue that local authorities in Wales can raise from local taxation should be increased. The lower level of increase in AEF relative to that for TSS means that local authorities should, on average, raise 10 per cent. of their income from the council tax, which is an increase of about 1·3 per cent. on last year. My plans will mean that 90 per cent. of all local authority revenue expenditure in Wales will be funded by central Government support.
Those figures will enable local authorities to spend just over £900 for every man, woman and child in Wales. I shall provide through Government support more than £810 towards that expenditure of £900. I believe that that is welcome news for the people of Wales, and it should ensure that council tax bills are kept to reasonable levels for the coming year.
I have received many representations on my settlement proposals, and I have chaired two meetings of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, or WCCLGF. At those meetings settlement matters have been discussed in detail. I am the first to acknowledge that the settlement for 1993–94 is not easy, and that local authorities will face some difficult decisions in determining their spending plans for next year. I wanted to place that point firmly on the record, because I have often recognised, individually and collectively with the local authorities concerned, that local government will face some difficult decisions.
Local government is not alone in that regard. Central Government, businesses large and small and individuals all face tough decisions. We cannot spend what we cannot afford, and that is particularly the case for central and local government, as they can spend only at the expense of the taxpayers they serve.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State believe that the fact that village schools all over rural Wales now face the real threat of closure, and that local authorities are now having to take very hard decisions is an acceptable price to pay for Government policy? Does he also believe that it is right that, as a result of Government policy, care in the community for some elderly people means care in a community very distant from their own?
Mr. Hunt: Local authorities must determine their priorities. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is, in reality, talking about TSS. The overall level of TSS in Powys has risen by 21 per cent. since 1990–91. The hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that that is the background to the current settlement. The 21 per cent. increase is at the bottom end of the range of increases, which average 25 per cent. over the past two financial years, and although the 21 per cent. increase appears to be a good figure, I recognise that it nevertheless presents Powys county council with some difficult decisions.
However, at the end of the day, the local authority must determine how it will deal with those difficult decisions. I will not seek to override any decisions that are taken, because that is a matter for Powys county council.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hunt: I will give way in a moment.
The local authority will appreciate, as will the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, that the restraint of public revenue expenditure must be of paramount importance as we build for the future. If we are to stimulate investment and ensure a soundly based economic recovery that will bring with it better long-term prospects for jobs and services, we must restrain public sector expenditure. Pay restraint is a key component in holding down the level of spending; that is why I wanted to stress once more that my settlement plans are based on the assumption——
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hunt: I will give way in a moment, after I have responded to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger).
My settlement plans are based on the public sector pay restraint assumptions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement on 12 November. I urge local government to keep pay increases within the zero to 1.5 per cent. limits set out in the autumn statement, because excessive pay increases can be met only at the expense of jobs and services. Only by exercising restraint now will we be able to benefit from economic recovery.
Mr. Ainger: In response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the Secretary of State referred to the fact that Powys had received a 21 per cent. increase in its SSAs over two years. I am sure that the Secretary of State will tell me that Dyfed received a 25 per cent. increase in its SSAs over the past two years. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there was not a 25 per cent. increase in services? The increase was intended simply
694
to cover the pay settlements for the fire brigade, police and teachers, all of which had been set by central Government, not local government?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that Dyfed has received 25 per cent. increase in total standard spending over the past two years. However, he is wrong about the reason for that increase. There has been a substantial increase in total standard spending—the total figure that is allocated—which includes several components in addition to pay.
It is not possible to close a school in the public sector without the local people exercising the right to approach the Secretary of State. Against that background, I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke will recognise that I cannot intervene in respect of individual spending decisions. However, I am the ultimate court of appeal with regard to decisions of that nature.
Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State is referring to restraint in public revenue expenditure. Is he aware that the results of the settlement and the cuts in revenue expenditure have meant the virtual halting of capital expenditure in many of our counties? I refer, for example, to expenditure on new roads and refurbishing schools, improvements in respect of pavements and street lighting —the very capital expenditure which could create jobs and which I thought was meant to be the publicly led capital growth that the Secretary of State is after.
Mr. Hunt: Let me deal with that point straight away. On capital spending, the amount available for basic credit approvals has reduced by £8·9 million, but that is to take account of the transfer of further education institutions. However, overall Government support for all local authority capital expenditure is up by 4 per cent. on 1992–93 to £484 million. That is a real-terms increase of £5.7 million. It allows for gross spending of £620 million, which is a real-terms increase of £45 million. Given the ability to utilise in full capital receipts realised during 1993, and the availability of——
Mr. Rowlands rose——
Mr. Hunt: If I may make this point to the hon. Gentleman, there are also additional resources available to cover expenditure to be reimbursed by grants from the European regional development fund, so I expect all authorities to be able to proceed with their planned capital programmes. I make that point absolutely clearly.
Mr. Rowlands: If Mid Glamorgan is an example to go by, fear of capping has caused a cut in revenue expenditure. The council is now so scared of spending that it has cut almost every new capital expenditure programme. The revenue consequences of capital expenditure are now preventing capital expenditure from going ahead.
Mr. Hunt: I do not want to intervene to try to second-guess what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Mid Glamorgan. It is for Mid Glamorgan to reach those decisions. Again, it will reach them against the background of one of the highest increases in total standard spending over the past two years. In the case of Mid Glamorgan, that is an increase of 26 per cent. in TSS. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the figures.
Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept the truth behind the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)? The right hon. Gentleman cannot avoid responsibility, because his settlement and his capping regime are putting county councils in such a position that they have no alternative but to cut their capital programmes. Why does he not accept that that is an inevitable consequence of the settlement and the capping regime that he has introduced?
Mr. Hunt: The figures that I have used are the figures. I see that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) does not dispute them. They make it possible, I believe, for local authorities to maintain their capital programmes. That is my judgment. I look forward to seeing what happens in reality, but I believe that, in so far as local——
Mr. Rowlands: Are we discussing reality?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, we are discussing reality. As the year progresses, we shall see capital programmes being maintained. Certainly the figures show that they can be.
Education has been mentioned. If one looks back over the past three years in Wales, one sees an underspend on the capital education spending programme. Already this year, provision for education capital spending is £63 million. The latest forecast is £59·8 million gross. In the financial year 1991–92, provision was £66·6 million. The actual spending was £56·4 million. There was a 15·3 per cent. underspend. I very much hope that those capital programmes to which I attach high priority are also regarded as a priority by the local authorities concerned.
Mr. Ron Davies: I am reluctant to intervene a second time, but I am trying to be helpful. If the Secretary of State realises the importance of the capital programme, if what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said comes about, and if it transpires in April, May and June that the counties must entirely disband their capital programmes, will he undertake to review the settlement at that time?
Mr. Hunt: I see that the hon. Gentleman still does not challenge the figures. The figures are there. They enable local authorities to attach a high priority to capital spending. What I am saying is that I hope that local authorities will attach a high priority to capital spending. Last week, I was able to announce a record capital spending programme for the Welsh Office. I have already mentioned the facility afforded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the utilisation of receipts this year. The mechanism is there for capital programmes to be maintained, and I hope that they will be maintained.
Mr. Paul Murphy rose——
Mr. Hunt: May I proceed for a moment? I am anxious that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) gets an opportunity to deliver his speech. Of course, the hon. Member may still be in the process of constructing it. He has just received it, so I shall give way.
Mr. Murphy: The Secretary of State talks about the capital programme for local authorities. How does he square his statement with the fact that there has been an 18 per cent. reduction in capital spending for districts in 1993, which is a total of £22 million?
Mr. Hunt: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the correct figures. Government support for local authority capital expenditure is an 18·5 per cent. increase on 1992–93. The hon. Member for Torfaen may have seized upon the wrong 18 per cent. The figures are absolutely correct. As I pointed out, the settlements for this year and last year increased total standard spending by 25 per cent. That is a substantial increase. With the increase of 3·1 per cent. for next year, total standard spending will have increased by almost 29 per cent. since 1990–91.
Many of the representations I have received have been more about the disparity in the levels of increase between county councils and district councils. The average increase in next year's standard spending assessments for district authorities is 9·8 per cent. For county authorities, it is 1·6 per cent., after taking account of the further education adjustments. Additional community care resources raise the level of the county increase to 3·6 per cent. The Assembly of Welsh Counties and individual county authorities have expressed considerable disquiet at the comparatively low level of increase in county resources. We discussed the matter at the meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 12 January.
The principles underlying the allocation of total resources between the county and district authority tiers have been the subject of long-standing agreement between the local authority associations. The methodology has remained virtually unchanged since the early 1980s. The starting point is the aggregate level of expenditure by each tier for the financial year three years preceding the settlement. For 1993–94, the base year for the tier share calculation is 1990–91.
The agreement of the authorities that the usual methodology should be used for 1993–94 was sought in September 1992. Early agreement is needed, because the tier share calculation cannot be undertaken until relatively late in the settlement timetable. When the result of the exercise for the coming financial year was known in December, the Assembly of Welsh Counties asked that I reconsider the arrangements. I said that I was perfectly prepared to so if both associations—the counties and the districts—could agree on proposals for change. I was told that, sadly, it was not possible for agreement to be reached.
I did not consider it appropriate that I should intervene to break with precedent and prescribe the allocation between tiers, especially at such a late stage. I suggested to both associations that we should make an early start on the methodology for 1994–95, and they have agreed.
The tier share arrangements, together with the arrangement for distributing resources between individual authorities within the tiers, show that local government has an active and positive role to play in the annual settlement in Wales. As the House will know, it is a much more direct role than is played in England. I am proud of the fact that we can reach agreement on many of these matters with local authorities. It is a role which I am anxious to maintain.
Neither I nor any of my predecessors has seen fit to intervene in the tier share arrangements. If I had tried to rewrite the arrangements on this occasion without the agreement of both the associations, it would have been contrary to the spirit of co-operation and partnership which we have built up over many years.
The SSAs for 1993–94 set out in the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) have been determined, as in years

697
past, in accordance with the distribution methodology that has been agreed with the associations through the consultative council. I would like to pay tribute to the associations for its work in achieving fully agreed conclusions. The work load has been particularly onerous this year because of the need to consider the best means of distributing the additional resources for care in the community.
My Department, county councils and the health service in Wales have worked together closely in making the necessary plans for implementing the new care in the community arrangements. I gave careful consideration to the need for the Secretary of State to make special arrangements for the distribution of the new community care resources; but, in view of the close working relationships that have been built up and the arrangements that we are making for monitoring progress on implementation, I decided not to introduce special grant arrangement in Wales.
With the agreement of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the resources are being distributed through the settlement but with the amounts for each county authority clearly identified, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I shall keep the position under review to ensure that the resources are used for their intended purposes.
The functional changes for 1993–94 to which I have referred this afternoon, and the changes to financial arrangements arising from the Local Government Finance Act 1992, mean that it is not possible—for capping purposes—to make a direct comparison between budgets set by local authorities in 1992–93 and budgets set for 1993–94. That is why I have exercised my statutory powers to specify for each authority in Wales a base position, known as a relevant notional amount, to measure budget increases for the purposes of applying capping principles. The relevant notional amount that I propose to specify for each local authority in Wales is set out in the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales).
I announced details of provisional notional amounts together with my provisional capping principles on 14 December. Local authorities were invited to make representations on their provisional notional amount figure by 19 January. Seven authorities responded with requests for amendments. I have given careful consideration to these representations and made revisions to the provisional figures, for six authorities—four in respect of county, further and higher education expenditure and two in respect of district collection fund interest expenditure.
Counties have until 28 February and district authorities have until 11 March to finalise their budgets for 1993–94. I urge them, notwithstanding the difficulties that some will face, to budget prudently and in line with my plans. My provisional capping principles will assist authorities in this task. In recent years, Welsh authorities have, on the whole, budgeted responsibly; although some have set their budgets at a higher level than I would wish. I have not considered it necessary to use my capping powers to date and I hope that I will not need to have recourse to them in 1993–94.
My settlement plans should mean that all local taxpayers in Wales receive reasonable council tax bills in the next financial year. Bills will vary depending on the budget decisions of individual authorities and the valuation band of the property in question. For the
698
purposes of distributing revenue support grant, as hon. Members will see from the report, I have identified a council tax figure for council tax spending for each property band.
The figure for band C properties is £231—£35 less than the average community charge for two adults in 1992–93, even after relief through the community charge reduction scheme is taken into account. What is perhaps even more important is that it is less than the average domestic rates bill in Wales was in 1989–90. Two thirds of properties in Wales fall in band C or the lower A and B bands. In view of that, I announced on 26 November that I considered transitional arrangements for the introduction of the council tax to be inappropriate.
My decision has been welcomed by the local authority associations. Individual council tax payers will benefit from a range of discounts. For example, single adult households will benefit from a 25 per cent. discount; those on income support will pay no council tax; and those on low incomes will receive council tax benefit on a sliding scale. Benefits for people on low incomes, including income support claimants, is estimated at more than £40 million in 1993–94.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: In the standard spending assessment, is the Secretary of State making allowances for district councils to be reimbursed for the tremendous increase in the take-up of housing benefit and rent allowance schemes? For example, last year Swansea council assisted 5,235 of its people with rent allowances, and the net cost to the council and community charge payers—after the Government subsidy—was £703,000 extra. Is he going to help such councils in view of those difficulties?
Mr. Hunt: Allowance was made at the outset, and I have no plans to change the formulae, which are well understood by local authority associations. I have some information, if I might move on to collection of the community charge.
I am most encouraged by the latest information supplied by local authorities on collection of the community charge. I am pleased to announce that they estimate a surplus of £16 million in their collection funds at 31 March 1993. It is clear that districts will collect more than 100 per cent. of the community charge that they budgeted to collect at the start of the financial year— [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) might have said that the poll tax was therefore a good idea after all—but perhaps he did not.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Just to put the record straight, I said that the Secretary of State used the same advocacy for the poll tax when he promoted that as a local government Minister. I hope that he is more correct about this form of local government finance than he was about the poll tax.
Mr. Hunt: The £16 million is a real figure, and I can tell the council tax payers of Wales that it will feed straight through to reduced council tax bills next year. For a tax payer in a band C property, that will mean on average a council tax £15 less than it would have been, and £17 less for those in band D properties. That is thanks to the diligence and efficiency of the authorities in collecting the community charge.

699
I will give careful consideration to the budget set by each local authority for 1993–94. In doing so, I will refer to my provisional capping criteria. In making my decisions on whether to cap individual authorities, I will take into account all relevant considerations. However, local authorities should not doubt my resolve to protect local taxpayers from unreasonable council tax burdens through use of my capping powers if that should prove necessary.
The settlement for 1993–94 provides Welsh authorities with a realistic level of funding in the current economic situation and should achieve reasonable council tax levels for the people of Wales. I commend the report to the House.
4.34 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: First, I thank the Secretary of State for the co-operation he showed to the Opposition, who have sought to ensure that these debates are held at a reasonable hour. The allocation of the full three hours is appreciated.
I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity of his first appearance at the Dispatch Box since the memorable day at Cardiff on Saturday to express his congratulations to the Welsh rugby team. I must speculate that he was perhaps less enthusiastic about the result than my hon. Friends.
Mr. David Hunt: I always believe that actions speak louder than words. I thought the hon. Gentleman would have noticed the Welsh schools rugby union tie and the Welsh rugby union emblem that I am wearing. I could not have been more delighted by that result and I join him in paying tribute to a magnificent match and a tremendous Welsh victory.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I thought that they were worn but not mentioned in respect for the Chair.
Mr. Davies: I am sure that there will be an opportunity for further discussion on that match, but not today.
I wonder what world the Secretary of State lives in, because his speech gave the impression that the settlement is a model one—generous even, and widely accepted in Wales. He talked about the consultations that he had and claimed that various increases in expenditure are available now. He implied that the settlement is reasonable, that it had been carefully worked out and that it was supported by a broad consensus. The reality is quite different.
The settlement is flawed both in its methodology and in the overall level of money available. The reality is that all Welsh local authorities have united in opposition to it. It is clearly inadequate, because it will not be able to guarantee the retention of vital public services. At a conservative estimate, it will destroy about 2,500 jobs in the public sector in Wales.
The settlement represents another step in the remorseless undermining of the financial base on which local democracy stands. It has come from a Secretary of State who gave us the poll tax and justified it by saying that he wanted to see local government made more accountable. On 9 March 1990, he said of the poll tax:
"The whole purpose of the community charge is to make councils accountable to their electors."
700
What accountability is there now, when all local government spending and the provision of more than 90 per cent. of local expenditure is determined by one man? There is nothing accountable, democratic or local about that.
The Secretary of State, whose Government have no mandate in Wales, who does not represent a Welsh constituency and who has been rejected by the people of Wales at the ballot box, has reached the level of taking even more powers to himself in defiance of public opinion and in the teeth of opposition from Welsh local authorities. In doing so, he has imposed, for the first time, capping limits on democratically elected public bodies. That decision reverses his previous principles. He has set those limits to ensure that his will is imposed, not on behalf of the people of Wales, but on behalf of a Tory Government whose financial and economic policies have brought the country to the brink of ruin.
Let the Secretary of State be in no doubt about the weight of feeling against the settlement among Welsh local authorities. He has claimed that additional resources are available, but that is not true. There has been an overall increase of 4·6 per cent.—£115 million—in the standard spending assessment, but the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that that includes £37·5 million to meet the new statutory responsibilities relating to care in the community. With that figure removed, we are left with 3·1 per cent. over the 1992–93 standard spending assessment —but last year's provision was itself inadequate and far removed from what local authorities actually spent on delivering services.
When compared with budget figures—that is, what was actually spent—the increase is down to 0·2 per cent. When the revised figure is compared with the agreed estimate of both Welsh local authority associations of what is required to meet inflation costs directly incurred, and additional responsibilities, some measure of the severity of the settlement can be seen.
The local authority requirement was for a further £130 million. That represents the lowest provision—or under-provision—in the reports. In particular, £70 million is required to meet the balance of pay awards, previously agreed in 1992 and effective only recently in the case of police and fire services. Implementation of the Children Act 1989, the national curriculum and waste management are all new responsibilities, but have not been allocated commensurate new resources.
Mr. Rod Richards: The hon. Gentleman clearly stated that he was against capping local government expenditure. How would he like local government expenditure to be controlled—or would he simply give local authorities a free hand?
Mr. Davies: Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the Secretary of State that we are debating the Secretary of State's proposals for financing local government. If the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Secretary of State to arrange another debate—here or upstairs in Committee; in Westminster or in Cardiff—I shall be happy to discuss the subject. I am prepared to discuss it anywhere, any time, any place. Today, however, we are debating the Secretary of State's proposals, and his under-financing of Welsh local authorities. I am not going to let the right hon. Gentleman off the hook. [Interruption.]—We are discussing a capping report and

701
Labour Members oppose that capping. If the Secretary of State or the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who is sitting behind him, wants suggestions about how local government finance should be arranged, I shall be happy to respond in debate. [Interruption.]
The Secretary of State can shout at me from a sedentary position as much as he likes. Let me make it clear to him that he can have a debate if he wants it, but he will have to find the time for it. Now is not the time.
The Secretary of State must explain why every major central Government Department has been given an increase of over 3·1 per cent..—and why his Department has been given an increase of 8·7 per cent.—over planned provision for 1992–93. Local government, which is providing services directly, faces severe cuts in real terms. While quangos multiply and flourish, elected authorities —responsible and accountable to the public, with high standards of financial propriety ensured through internal and external audit and full public scrutiny—are being denied essential resources.
Over the past decade, Wales has suffered a decline relative to the United Kingdom as a whole and to Europe. The economic recession places further burdens on local authorities—housing the homeless, providing support for the unemployed and disadvantaged and caring for the poor and elderly. If we emerge from the slump, it will be due in no small measure to public expenditure on infrastructure—on new roads and development programmes—to investment in education and training and to the provision of jobs in the building of new homes, schools and roads and the improvement of the environment. Both to deal with the casualties of recession and to escape the recession, we need public sector-led growth, but, instead of growth, we have been given a programme that will accelerate decline.
Let us examine the choices with which Welsh authorities have been faced. One of the grimmest local government documents that I have ever seen is Mid Glamorgan's report entitled "1993–1994 proposals for a reduction in services". I do not want to go into all the details, but let us consider the choices facing Mid Glamorgan's elected representatives. They have been told to cut £5·5 million from its education budget, over £1 million from highways expenditure and over £1 million from social services—a total of £15 million. That presents the authority with unacceptable choices. Such cuts undermine and destroy the present fabric and the future care of our communities.
I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not answer the question put to him very directly by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). The right hon. Gentleman must accept that the tightness of the provision being made for Mid Glamorgan, together with the threat of capping, confront the authority with a grim choice. Either it maintains its capital budget or it must sack teachers. It is not surprising that an authority faced with such an unenviable choice wants to hold on to what it has, and decides not to sack teachers.
The Secretary of State should understand the inevitable consequence of the provision that he has made—that a capital programme will not be honoured. I hope that he finally appreciates that. I hope that, when he returns to the Welsh Office, he will talk to Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and all the other counties that face the grim choice and the loss of their capital programmes.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a report from Mid Glamorgan, which he has clearly studied in some detail. Perhaps he can tell us whether the report makes any reference to the number of surplus school places in Mid Glamorgan.
Mr. Davies: I am happy to debate surplus school places. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the way in which to get rid of them is not to do what was done in the case of Gwent: when Gwent tried to get rid of surplus school places, Cwncarn secondary school—which was destined for closure if that happened—was bribed to opt out of the public sector, to ensure its maintenance. I have done my homework in the case of Mid Glamorgan; I hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has done his in the case of Powys.
Mr. Richards: Answer the question.
Mr. Davies: I have given a very clear answer.
Let me make clear to Conservative Members the damage that they will be doing, not only to the structures of local government—although that is bad enough—but to families, if they vote in favour of the settlement. Let me read a letter, addressed to the Secretary of State, from a resident of Milford Haven—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger):
"I am writing to you as a result of discovering last week that Dyfed Education Authority has been forced to stop all discretionary grants for 1993–94. When I 'phoned my local Education Office to enquire about grants for both my daughters they told me that I could apply for a grant for my elder daughter because she has a place at University. My second daughter has always had a poor deal educationally. She is dyslexic and has had only the most minimal help and that only in recent years … Despite this, being a hardworking girl, she took the courageous decision to return to school, for this year, to try and improve her results. Her plan was to take the B tee …. This would give her the opportunity, at a later date to be considered for teacher training. Now that the grants have been stopped there is no chance of that. What do you suggest I tell her? 'Sorry, Louise, I know you're only seventeen but you are on the scrap heap'. I have spent the last fourteen years bringing up my daughters alone. I have had only the minimum of help from government sources. I have taught both children that if you work hard you'll succeed in the end. Now your policies show them that what I have taught them is a cruel joke. The present situation in the country shows John Major's announcements about equal opportunity for all to be a myth…Please don't insult me by blaming our local authority. They have no real choices because of things like capping. The continual 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', simply can't go on. It is destroying lives in all parts of society. I see it every day in my job as district nurse. More and more of my time is spent on trying to help people overcome social problems that are affecting their health. I will end by saying that I despair for all us as long as this is allowed to continue."
That was written to the Secretary of State for Wales and copied to the Secretary of State for Education and to the Prime Minister. As of last Friday, neither the Secretary of State for Wales nor the Secretary of State for Education nor the Prime Minister had had the courtesy to respond to the letter.
What price, then, the citizens charter? What price the parents charter or the students charter? Throughout the counties of Wales the pattern is repeated: £12 million of cuts in Clwyd threatening 300 teachers' jobs, and more than £3 million in Gwynedd. The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) will vote for that tonight. In South Glamorgan and Gwent, £8 million and £11.5 million respectively are to be cut, with service cuts across

703
the board. The hon. Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) will vote for that tonight. In Powys, there will be more than £3 million-worth of cuts in education, highways, social services and fire services. And there is to be the tragic loss of Storey Arms because of the cuts in South Glamorgan's budget. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor will vote for that tonight.
Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way he is nailing responsibility to its rightful place—the door of the Welsh Office. People throughout South Glamorgan are appalled by the way in which the Secretary of State has forced our county to make cuts, in music, in choirs and bands and orchestras, in outdoor pursuits and in local youth services. Those cuts will leave many hands idle. Is not it appalling that the quality of life in our communities is threatened by the decisions of the Secretary of State for Wales?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes his own compelling case and I am grateful for his support.
I have not yet mentioned the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who is sitting with a quizzical look on his face—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends are making some helpful suggestions to assist the hon. Gentleman with his decision making. I suggest that he does as he always does when he has a crisis of conscience —what the Whips tell him to do.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the position of Storey Arms. He will know that in my constituency there are 10 such outdoor education centres run by county councils, some of them Welsh. The only county council threatening to sack people is the Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council, which is drastically reducing the budget for Storey Arms and engaging in a political stunt by trying to direct the blame for that towards the Secretary of State, rather than where it should go under political accountability—to the people who made the decision in the first place.
Mr. Davies: I have heard that argument before, so I took the trouble to discuss it with the treasurer of South Glamorgan and the chairmen of the finance committee and the education department. I was told that the choice facing South Glamorgan is to comply with its statutory duties and make cuts of this nature or to put itself in breach of the law by cutting back on its statutory provision.
I understand the great difficulty that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor faces. He may have 10 such facilities in his constituency, but by voting for these reports tonight, he will ensure that there are nine. If there are a succession of such reports he will find that he ends up with far fewer.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres and other related associations have been strenuously lobbying members serving on the Education Bill Standing Committee, because it is not just Storey Arms which will go. If the Government's education policies continue, all these centres will be lost in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Davies: These are the clear choices facing hon. Members in the Lobbies tonight. It is just a pity that the people of Wales cannot vote on the record of the Secretary of State. It is also a pity that the right hon. Gentleman does not have uppermost in his mind his responsibility to work with local authorities to improve the quality of Welsh life, instead of choosing continually to undermine them.
The right hon. Gentleman sought, for instance to divert attention from these cuts and their consequences by dividing the counties from the districts, seeking to achieve by presentational trickery what he could not do in open debate. He wanted to hide from the people of Wales the direct consequences of his policies. Today he tried to suggest that there was an agreement of sorts—that the tier share was unfortunate this year, but that that was some historical accident which did not matter because counties and districts had agreed.
That is just not true. I should like to read into the record a letter that I received from the secretary of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, written on 5 February:
"Dear Mr. Davies
1993–94 Tier Share of Standard Spending Assessments
With reference to your inquiry as to whether the Assembly of Welsh Counties had agreed the 1993–94 tier share of SSAs, there is no justification for the Secretary of State making such an assertion, unless he attempts to rely on discussions held last September between Welsh Office officials and officers of the Assembly"——
Mr. David Hunt: That is right.
Mr. Davies: Fine. I continue:
"If the Secretary of State opts for this argument, then it is only fair to point out that at the time of the alleged officer agreement no figures relating to the 1993–94 grant year were available, and the minute of the meeting records that further discussions would take place when the relevant data became available.
As Secretary of the Assembly of Welsh Counties and also on behalf of the Financial Adviser and other officers present representing the AWC at the meeting with Welsh Office officials on 28 September 1992, I give the categorical assurance that no agreement was signified at that meeting to the use of the tier share methodology for the 1993–94. D. Hugh Thomas"
That is a clear repudiation of the Secretary of State's position, and I hope that he will reflect on it.
Mr. Hunt: I agree with the words used by that honourable public servant—with every word. I confirmed earlier that the agreement reached in September was reached in the context in which Mr. Thomas has put it, and the minutes record an agreement. I accept that Mr. Thomas genuinely believed that agreement had not been reached. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will move on from what could be a very divisive issue. If he proceeds to give the view of the Council of Welsh Districts —I do not know whether he has consulted it—he will no doubt tell us that it takes an opposite view to the one expressed by Mr. Thomas. Such discussion does not further relations between local authorities, the Government and the Opposition, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not carry on with it.
Mr. Davies: That comes ill from a Secretary of State who, after the meeting at which he sought to divide the counties from the districts, went out to the steps of the Welsh Office to brief the press and said. "If they can agree among themselves, so be it. If they cannot, let them fight it out." So who is talking about divisions and consensus? I will not have a Secretary of State who has done all he can

705
to cause division and undermine local government telling me or any of my hon. Friends who have spent years in local government about divisiveness.
Of course I have consulted the districts closely. It is true that they have done relatively well this year compared with the counties. There is certainly disagreement on the formula used to calculate the tier split. Even so, the pattern of cuts for the districts is exactly the same. There is a £12 million cut in the housing programme, economic development budget cuts in Swansea, 30 per cent. of the urban programme schemes have been axed in Cardiff and the urban renovation projects in Blaenau Gwent have been scrapped. I have a direct answer to the Secretary of State's question. We have consulted the districts closely and found that the pattern of cuts is exactly the same as that for the counties.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Secretary of State is fomenting differences. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Storey Arms, an issue which I took up with the South Glamorgan council on behalf of a number of constituents. I am still awaiting a reply, but I do not complain about that. South Glamorgan council has a discretion in the matter: for the hon. Gentleman to try to put the blame for every action by a local authority on the Secretary of State is plainly stupid.
Mr. Davies: I mean no reflection on the hon. Gentleman when I say that that issue was discussed about 10 minutes ago. He has only just managed to work out his question. The hon. Gentleman is the only hon. Member I know who thinks that being called a diligent constituency Member of Parliament by the Secretary of State is a compliment.
There is a great variation, especially among the districts, in the range of budget increases allowed under the new draconian capping rules. Districts such as Newport and Cardiff are restricted to increases of under 2 per cent. Islwyn, Aberconwy, Torfaen and Swansea will be restricted to increases of between 2 and 3 per cent. As we have seen, those represent substantial cuts in real terms and will lead to drastic cuts in services. The areas to suffer will include some of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom, and the severity of the cuts will mean that in many cases even the reduced capital programme cannot be undertaken. That will directly undermine the thrust of the Government's revised economic policy that was announced in the autumn statement.
What is the logic or the justice of penalising the former mining valleys while the relatively more prosperous areas do so much better? Monmouth does best with an increase of over 25 per cent. Dinefwr, South Pembrokeshire and Carmarthen have increases above 20 per cent. That irrational pattern is repeated year after year. How can local authorities be expected to plan ahead, and make long-term financial decisions when next year's allocation is always in doubt, and especially so this time, when Welsh Office uncertainties and inaccuracies have resulted in the severest delays?
On 29 January, the Western Mail reported that the Secretary of State said:
"I am the first to acknowledge that my plans present some councils with difficult budgeting decisions."
He can say that again. He continued:
706
"Nonetheless, this settlement is the most that the country and local taxpayers can afford in the present economic circumstances."
There it is in a nutshell. The Secretary of State acknowledges that after 14 years of government by his party, after the receipt of billions of pounds from asset selling, the one-off windfall of North sea oil, the succession of brilliant reforming Chancellors and consensus-seeking Secretaries of State for Wales, the Government do not think that we can afford to house people decently, to care for the elderly or educate the young. The Secretary of State might think that that is good enough for the people of Wales. We do not, and that is why we shall vote against the motions.
5.4 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I should like to concentrate on the way in which the proposed rate support grant settlement will affect my county of Clwyd. My constituents and I depend on my county for a wide range of essential services which are best provided by local government. I shall describe what the cut in funding—for that is what it is—for county-based services will mean. Despite what the Secretary of State said, it is a cut on a cut and on many previous cuts. He cannot seriously expect the residents of Clwyd to believe that the elected representatives of whatever party would happily agree to cut budgets and therefore services by £3 million last year and £12 million in the coming year.
Clwyd has the unhappy problem of the Welsh Office treating standard spending assessments as figures cast in tablets of stone, which results in Clwyd having an assessment of £37 per head below the all-county average. Leaving aside the principle of using a figure which was always intended as a guideline for precise financial control, it is obvious that a county with rural and urban problems has uniquely synergistic circumstances. Its use means that Clwyd faces a cut of £12 million, if the threat of capping with the same criteria as last year is maintained.
As a result, the community development budget in Clwyd will be reduced by £374,000. That will lead to cuts in libraries, an 80 per cent. reduction in adult fiction and rationalisation of the mobile library service, which is a godsend in a rural area. While those proposals imply a poorer service, they are at least preferable to the option of closing 15 static libraries to reach the same target.
Development and tourism will have to be cut. There are proposals to reduce the development and marketing budget, which critically affects the capacity of the county council to assist in building up the county's economic infrastructure at a time of recession. Revenue for education will be reduced by £7 million. The aim has been to reduce the impact on school budgets through central support services taking a higher percentage of the reductions. As a consequence, target savings have been reached in Clwyd by increasing the cost of school meals and school transport charges.
With 70 per cent. of the education budget delegated to schools, it is inevitable that, despite the protection afforded, there will be reductions in teaching staff. That will mean the loss of more than 200 jobs. The areas of environment and protection cover emergency planning, the fire service, the planning department, the registration service and the trading standards service. The cuts in those services amount to £216,000. Target reductions of just under £500,000 were required, but such savings could not

707
be found, because there is already a shortage of firefighters and cuts would have made it impossible to maintain the proper level of fire cover. Despite that, the service budget is to be cut by £156,000.
In highways and transportation, the proposed cut is £1 million, and that will affect highway improvements. Capital resources for that purpose will be switched to structural maintenance to ensure that the rate of deterioration in the fabric of the county's highways does not continue to increase. The switch not only affects the council's capacity to improve the county's infrastructure, but will have an impact on local employment.
The policy and financial resources area of Clwyd county council faces a reduction of £500,000. That will require efficiency savings, income generation and 21 job losses. The social services budget will be reduced by £1 million, and that is the worst cut. The proposals for Clwyd lead to reductions in capacity to implement in full the requirements of the Children Act 1989. There will be increases in home care charges, meals on wheels charges and luncheon club charges for the elderly, as well as increases in charges for day centres attended by those with learning difficulties.
Mr. David Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Clwyd county council also estimates that many jobs may be lost in many other sectors? I am particularly concerned about the projections for Theatre Clwyd in my constituency. Our concern is that cuts in revenue support grant will lead to further closures and job losses and perhaps to the loss of centres of excellence. I also support my hon. Friend's comments about library services. I visited the mobile library in my constituency three weeks ago and found a valuable service to rural areas which is threatened by cuts. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency in particular, which covers the shire towns of Clwyd, faces job cuts which will have knock-on effects on the local economy?
Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for his intervention. I did not mention Theatre Clwyd, but it is a centre of excellence which attracts jobs and investment to the area.
As the Secretary of State said, the community care moneys will be increased by £6·6 million. That is all very well, but the committee is still underfunded to meet the obligation, as most of the transferred moneys will be used to replace a loss of Department of Social Security income in residential establishments. The committee is short of its target reduction figure by £640,000, the only alternative which would have enabled the committee to come in on target being the closure of yet more elderly persons' homes —three in all.
The reductions that I have mentioned give only part of the picture in terms of the scale of the problem. Budgets were already overstretched before the Secretary of State's guidelines and standstill budgets have been the norm for some years, which means that there has been little scope to develop services or to keep pace with the increased demand for services by customers and the increased responsibilities imposed on local authorities by central Government.
Furthermore, at a time of severe recession, reductions in the services provided by local authorities affect most severely those who are most vulnerable to changes in
708
economic conditions. In having to make cuts in services, with the inevitable job implications—perhaps as many as 400 jobs are at risk, and the knock-on effect must also be included—the county council is having to help worsen the situation for those people for whom it has responsibility. Rather than being given the capacity to offset the worst effects of the recession and to plan for the future, the county council's expenditure reductions mean that it has a reduced ability to promote the long-term welfare and economic well-being of the people of Clwyd.
What does all this mean in terms of democracy, employment or even common sense? First, in terms of local democracy, it means that councils cannot make up shortfalls in central taxation of funding by Government —that is what we are debating today. They cannot raise local taxes because of that expensive fiasco, the poll tax. As the Secretary of State said, 90 per cent. of funding comes from central sources, and the local element is capped anyway so there are more insidious effects. Councils are now reluctant to fulfil the wishes of their electors by turning down even the most obnoxious planning applications—waste tips, opencast quarries and so on—because most are subsequently granted by the Secretary of State after an expensive appeal paid for by the council. That effectively removes any genuine local democracy.
Mr. Roger Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: We do not have a lot of time, but I will give way.
Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that any local authority in Wales is so far in dereliction of its duty that it is granting planning permission and not discharging its proper statutory obligations to consider plans on their merits and according to policies?
Mr. Jones: No.
That effectively removes any local democracy and allows developments of the kind that I have mentioned in places where they could not and should not be allowed —for example, at a site such as Pen y Bont in my constituency, where a waste tip is bordered on all sides by a river which carries water to my constituency and that of the Secretary of State. The plan was turned down by the county council, but was granted by the Secretary of State after an expensive appeal paid for 90 per cent. out of central Government taxation and 10 per cent. by my local constituents.
There are two employment considerations. There is the first and immediately obvious direct effect of the loss of 200-plus jobs in teaching, 50-plus jobs in social services and 21 jobs in shire halls. Secondly, the ability of the council to attract jobs will be reduced. Clwyd county council has persuaded 87 companies to set up there, with the creation of 3,172 jobs. The attack on Clwyd's grant will damage economic development. It needs more money to promote such schemes, but it is getting less.
That leads me neatly to the lack of common sense in the whole business. The cut will mean a reduction in home helps, more expensive meals for the elderly, cuts in transport and in day care for the mentally handicapped. It will mean that Clwyd will not be able to meet the conditions of the Children Act 1989, or the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Where is the common sense in legislating for such

709
provisions and then not giving the agencies which have to implement them the wherewithal to carry out the required tasks?
To make matters worse, the differential between the districts and the county suggests that, although the settlement is not over-generous, the services that they provide are valued more than those provided by the county.
Dr. John Marek: I have been listening to my hon. Friend, and it is clear that Clwyd county council is in terrible straits. Although the Government do not have a mandate in Wales, where they had a derisory vote in the last general election, they are in office here in London for four years and will continue to screw down county councils. Is not the lesson to be drawn from that that the Secretary of State should get on with reorganisation of local government as quickly as possible to put an end to the county councils and introduce unitary authorities to restore the power and freedom of action that local authorities used to have in the Principality?
Mr. Jones: As a supporter of unitary authorities, I agree with my hon. Friend, but there will be elections before that—a point to which I shall be coming.
The difference in funding between the districts and the counties is strange, given that the upheavals created in education and social service provision by the Government's legislation has affected local government functions. Where is the sense in that? The Government would deny that this is cynically designed to cause even more chaos in education and to drive schools into opting out. It would be interesting to know where they would get the money to fund every school directly if all decided to go for direct rule from Whitehall via Cardiff, which is what grant-maintained status means.
Lastly, I shall cynically speculate that those enforced cuts in county council spending are nicely timed to force Labour councils to reduce services and make unpopular choices under the threat of capping just before the next county elections. It might also have more than a little to do with the fact that the council tax has every chance of bringing enormous bills through our letter boxes once more. The poll tax is dead: long live poll tax 2. Or perhaps, "Nightmare on High Street 1" is being superseded by "Nightmare on High Street 2", subtitled, "The Council Tax".
5.17 pm
Mr. Jonathan Evans: During the debate, we have heard of an outdoor education centre that is based within my constituency and run by South Glamorgan county council. As I said earlier, it is one of 10, all of them run by local authorities, including three London authorities, three in Wales and Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and Essex. Those centres are greatly valued, not only in my constituency but by the 17,000 pupils all over the country who visit my constituency to benefit from attending the centres.
We have heard an attempt to pin on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales the blame for a decision that has so far been only recommended, and has yet to be made by South Glamorgan county council—that to close the Storey Arms centre. In the circumstances, it is important that we look carefully at the background to the matter. It is interesting that the proposals that are to be
710
considered by the county council involves not just the change to Storey Arms but also affect two other centres of learning outside the county council boundary at Llanover and Porthcawl.
In the case of the Storey Arms centre, as I understand the proposal, it is not that it should be closed altogether, but that the amount of money being provided by way of funding to South Glamorgan county council from the Secretary of State is so insufficient that there should be a cut in its budget and it should become self-financing, inviting pupils to pay £180 a time to visit the centre.
I have a letter that was sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales by Mr. David Morris, the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Mid and West Wales, who draws attention to the prospective decision. In the final paragraph, he states:
"I would, therefore, appeal to you to provide South Glamorgan County Council with an extra allocation of funds to save Storey Arms from closure."
In other words, Mr. Morris invites my right hon. Friend to find sufficient money to save that specific centre. That demonstrates that South Glamorgan county council has embarked on a political stunt.
It was wicked to have contemplated such a course of action, especially because it dreadfully embarrasses Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) he referred specifically to the representations that have been made by the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres.
The hon. Member for Bridgend will know—I am aware that he has tirelessly been doing his duty considering the Education Bill in Committee—that the association has been making representations on a clause that would convert outdoor education centres to free-standing status. It is proposed that there should be a two-year transitional period, but that is not the position of South Glamorgan county council. Indeed, it has pre-empted that debate. It has said that the scheme will come into operation on 1 April. That means that the Storey Arms will have two months in which to acclimatise itself to a new financial regime.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: The hon. Gentleman shows a partial understanding of the situation in which the outdoor education centres find themselves. It is clear from all the representations that I have received from them that, under the local management of schools system—a system which directs considerable funds to individual schools—the centres throughout England and Wales are generally in great difficulty already. They are saying that the spread of grantmaintained status would finish them off. Storey Arms is suffering earlier than the rest, but they are sure to suffer as well.
Mr. Evans: That intervention demonstrates the limited understanding of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). That comes as some surprise to me, because he is a member of the Committee that is considering the Education Bill.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres, along with Mr. McMorrin —he is active in Wales and is a constituent of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—has said

711
that the existing system of financing the local management of schools is putting pressure on outdoor education centres and that clause 224 of the Education Bill represents the last nail in their coffin. They say that South Glamorgan county council's decision—it has been forced to take it because of its financial predicament—to pre-empt clause 224 is not an isolated one. There are Conservative-controlled authorities in England—in Cumbria—that have already mothballed outdoor education centres. The position of South Glamorgan county council is not unique.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. He has referred to the clause in the Education Bill that has been the subject of representations both by the association to the Minister and by myself. He well knows that the action that is being taken by South Glamorgan cuts the ground from under his feet when he comes to argue these matters in Committee, and specifically in the context of Storey Arms.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned other outdoor education centres. He knows that within my costituency there are nine other such centres, many of which are run by Conservative authorities. They are not, however, under the threat that faces Storey Arms, whatever difficulties are arising. We are seeking to address these matters in terms of the switch to the local management of schools.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I should like to make some progress, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jones: I have been taking children to the outdoor centre at Dol-y-Gaer over the past decade and more. In the past few days I have had conversations with Clive Roberts, the manager of Dol-y-Gaer, and with Mr. Pugh, the manager of Storey Arms. The difference between Storey Arms and many of the other nine centres in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is that Storey Arms has almost 100 per cent. usage by school children from the county. Other authorities are having increasingly to find finance from companies and other sources to pay for the use of the centres. The problem is trying to turn round Storey Arms, as it were, within the time scale that South Glamorgan county council has in mind. It is——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a speech.
Mr. Evans: South Glamorgan county council has to consider, in the context of the funding that has been made available to it, whether the facilities can be kept available for the school children of South Glamorgan. My primary concern is to keep Storey Arms centre open. I have very much in mind the employment of 14 of my constituents who work at the facility. The key feature is that South Glamorgan county council is making a decision that will damage 2,000 children from its area who visit Storey Arms centre each year. It is clear from the cacophony of protests from Opposition Members that the decision has been made by South Glamorgan county council and that it is not attributable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I have had the opportunity to speak to South Glamorgan county councillors about the matter. They have told me that the financial problem that faces the
712
county council could easily be addressed. It seems that that has not happened because of the political difficulties that we have heard about from the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). Within the Ely area of Cardiff there is a surplus of secondary school places, which means that savings could be made. Unfortunately, South Glamorgan county council is fearful of making such a decision, for political reasons. It seems that it is prepared to carry the cost of surplus places and to make a political stunt decision that is designed to pin the blame on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
That example clearly illustrates the thrust of the Opposition's approach to these matters. They are not prepared to consider the facts of life and to take proper but tough decisions. Instead, they wish to pin the blame on someone else. It is extraordinary that we are receiving daily from the National Union of Teachers cards that tell us about the wonderful system of accountability that we have with our local education authorities. On the contrary. LEAs and too many other authorities and individuals in local government wish to disclaim accountability. We must surely pin accountability to where it lies, and in this instance there is no doubt that South Glamorgan county council is responsible.
5.28 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: Perhaps we can now return to the subject after that extraordinary diatribe, which had nothing to do with the settlement. I remind the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) that about an hour ago the Secretary of State said, "We are discussing reality." I suggest to the Minister that the Secretary of State was discussing only his perception of reality, rather than the reality that counties and districts in Wales are having to face.
What sort of reality is it, 14 years after Lady Thatcher quoted St. Francis of Assisi on the steps of No. 10 Downing street, that leads to the situation that I am about to describe? I shall take the real example of Miss J., who lives in a village in my constituency and whom I visited a few days ago. She has a 95-year-old father. She and her father lived alone in a council house until very recently. They have no car and rely on the good nature of friends to drive them around.
Miss J's father is in hospital in Newtown. It has been decided that he should be removed from hospital to a place in the community—somewhere where he can pass his last few years. But in what community? He has been offered one place in Shropshire, far away from public transport, and another place in Shropshire even further from public transport. He is not even allowed to die quietly in his country, Wales. His daughter, who is neither young nor in the best of health, will hardly be able to visit him—perhaps once a fortnight through the kindness of her friends.
The destruction that this version of care in the community is bringing to the daughter's life and that of her father is self-evident. It arises because there simply is not the finance available in Powys to ensure that an elderly gentleman, born and bred in his own village, can pass the rest of his days in close proximity to the village from where his daugher can have reasonable access to him.
What kind of reality is it when the chief executive of Powys county council, for understandable reasons, is leaving, partly because of the uncertainty that faces local government in Wales? He has gone to a very good job. Our

713
loss is Shropshire's gain. He is an extremely able chief executive, but I do not doubt for a minute that his decision was made partly because morale in local government in Wales is very low. Indeed, just before the end of last year, the council's director of education took early retirement, saying openly that he was doing so because of declining morale in local government and the uncertainty of the education system under this Government. The deputy director of education took early retirement, too: his spirit was sapped by what had been happening in local government.
What kind of reality is it when, after years, decades and in some cases more than a century of providing not only good but essential service, the village school in Pontrobert in my constituency, which has adequate buildings, high education standards and excellent teachers, is facing closure and is fighting for its life, led by its redoubtable chairman of governors, Mr. Huw Gwalchmai? What kind of job is it to be the chairman of governors of a school, especially a village school?
In what kind of reality is Powys county council and its high schools being asked to meet the requirements that will rightly be made by the Welsh Language Bill when it becomes law? Why are staff at Caereinion high school in my constituency riven by dissension about the way in which they should deal with the problem of education through the medium of Welsh? It is because successive Governments have not ensured that the problem was properly tackled throughout Wales.
What kind of reality is it that leads to the most inconsistent administration of trading standards law that we have seen in the past 25 years since the enactment of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968? In one county, shoddy and defective goods may lead to a prosecution; but in another there is no money even to consider a prosecution. The uncertainty goes further than that, because the Secretary of State, in the foreplay to his extraordinary dance with the White Paper on local government reform, seems to have changed his mind at least once already about what will happen to trading standards in Wales.
What kind of reality is it when we hear that Theatre Clwyd, a great centre of excellence which has brought a new level of cultural attraction and achievement to north and mid-Wales, faces cuts that will mean a reduction in the availability of performing arts, in the availability of participatory arts and in the availability of the often neglected visual arts for the northern half of Wales? I do not think that that is a reality that the Secretary of State should be proud of.
I do not much care—and neither do the people of Wales —which quadratic equation is applied to the funding of local government in Wales. We have heard the Secretary of State's version of the quadratic equation. On the Labour side, we have at least one expert on the quadratic equation from Wrexham. Each could produce their own formula, for what it is worth. What matters much more than the formula is what happens to people.
What kind of reality is it that leads to the public in Wales having to drive over potholed roads; or to find that there has been a bailey bridge on a well-used road between Welshpool and Montgomery for the past 20 years? These are the realities which people should not have to face.
It is a matter of shame, which the Government should recognise as their own shame, that, 14 years after Lady Thatcher stood quoting the words of generous hope and concord of St. Francis of Assisi, the level of public service
714
through local government in Wales has declined, that the quality of democracy in Wales has declined and that public uncertainty has increased.
I call on the Minister to answer those questions when he replies to the debate, because without answers the people of Wales will remain rightly dissatisfied with the performance of this Government and their current viceroy from an English constituency.
5.38 pm
Mr. Rod Richards: Perhaps we can now return to the reality of this debate, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), whose face becomes increasingly unfamiliar to Conservative Members as the years go by.
I know of no problem that the Labour party cannot solve without spending more money. Indeed, for the Labour party it is as easy as signing an IOU. It fails to realise and recognise that more money spent on local government means less money spent elsewhere on health, on benefits or whatever. The Opposition fail to recognise that one cannot run the country as they ran it in the 1970s. They spent and spent and spent without realising their obligations to the country at large.
Mr. Ainger: The hon. Gentleman says that the previous Labour Government spent and spent and spent; but what is the projected public spending borrowing requirement for next year?
Mr. Richards: That is precisely the point. It is because the projected public sector borrowing requirement is so high—about £30 billion—that Government spending must be constrained. It is a point that the Opposition have failed to understand this year, as they have always failed to understand it. Indeed, every Labour Government have failed to understand that fundamental aspect of governing a country. Government spending must be placed in the context of Government income, which has to be put in the context of the economy of the world. As the Opposition know, the economy of the western world has been in recession.
I have seen many crocodile tears from the Opposition who recommend that the Government should spend more on this, that or the other. However, they have not mentioned the waste and corruption in local authorities, usually those run by Labour. There are scandals and corruption from Lambeth to Liverpool, from Monklands to Manchester, and in Sheffield——
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the revenue support grant orders for Wales? None of the local authorities that he mentioned has anything to do with Wales, and neither of the reports that we are debating will affect local government in the areas that he mentioned, so his references must be wholly out of order.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me rule on one point of order at a time. I assume that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is alluding to those authorities in relation to the reports. If so, he is in order, but if he develops his argument, he will not he in order.
Mr. Carlile: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to accuse local authorities of criminal offences and of corruption without naming those authorities and without having evidence on which to base his accusation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are responsible for what they say in the House. The Chair has no responsibility for that.
Mr. Richards: The last authority that I mentioned was Sheffield city council. The Opposition will be aware that that council is providing offices rent and rates-free to five Labour hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I made it clear that allusions were in order, but the hon. Gentleman is not to develop them. The order is clear—let us return to the subject of Wales.
Mr. Richards: I referred to those authorities in England because I wished to draw an analogy with the Labour party in Rhyl in my constituency, which appears to have modelled itself on Lambeth. That is no surprise, because it is run from Liverpool city council.
Some members of Rhyl Labour party have applied to Clwyd county council for funding for what they call the Rhyl West community resource team. The team requires resources of about £80,000 from public sector funds. However, it means nothing other than jobs for the boys of Rhyl Labour party, because it will offer the good people of west Rhyl nothing more than advice and information——
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not wish to make another point of order, but it is clear that the hon. Gentleman's scurrilous and unprovoked attack on individuals in his constituency is outside the debate. He is referring to individuals——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Davies: Let me put my case, if I may.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has already put his case, because he has spoken for several seconds. He said that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West was out of order, but I have been listening especially attentively in the light of the previous points of order, and so far the hon. Gentleman is in order.
Mr. Richards: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The £80,000 allocated by Clwyd county council to such a project means £80,000 less for another project.
Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Opposition get excited, it means that one has hit the nail on the head?
Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend has also, characteristically, hit the nail on the head.
The so-called resource team offers to do no more than established organisations already do. It will do nothing but duplicate services already being provided by citizens advice bureaux. The bureaux and the library information service would like more funding from Clwyd county council, and they already provide the advice and information that the resource team would duplicate.
Mr. Ron Davies: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman was talking about an application that had been approved by the local authority, that would be within the terms of the debate, but as he is talking about an organisation which has merely made an application to the local authority, he cannot be in order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, we are debating the financial year 1993–94, and I presume that applications for that year have not yet closed. I assume that the organisation is applying for local government funding, so it must be covered by a debate on expenditure.
Mr. Richards: I am trying to highlight the fact that the Opposition do not use public funds in the best possible way. I mentioned citizens advice bureaux and the library information service, which would like more funding. A benefits advice shop already exists in Rhyl, so the resource team which has applied for £80,000 will merely duplicate the existing services. It is absolutely scandalous.
I, and, I am sure, many other hon. Members, have corresponded with people who are involved with the mentally handicapped in Clwyd, and Clwyd social services department has cut the resources available to them. It is outrageous that the Opposition should use funds to duplicate services when other services, which the county council is cutting, need more funding.
We shall take no lessons from the Opposition on underfunding or on any other aspect of funding until they put their house in order and ensure that their local government representatives properly represent the people who elected them.
5.48 pm
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I was expecting the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) to continue his speech for much longer. I am most grateful that he did not.
Following the election, the Secretary of State has imposed capping criteria in Wales for the first time. The capping has not been imposed gradually, as may have been the case in England. In Wales, the axe has fallen especially suddenly, severely and unfairly. By the autumn, it became clear that there would be a £200 million shortfall in the amount that county councils would be allowed to spend. The final settlement confirms that only £78 million has been allowed for inflation, for increased demand and for the problems associated with an increasingly elderly population. It was believed that £262 million was necessary. The additional sum allocated for community care is recognised by everyone within the service as completely inadequate for the increased demands put on it.
I know that local authorities argue constantly—and with good cause—for more funding. This time they can with justice claim a crisis of cash shortage. Vital services, in the real sense of the word, are being put at risk. I am talking not about library services but about vital services such as the social services and the fire service. I am not being alarmist in saying that people will die as a result of the cuts. Essential functions in education and in highways will be severely affected. Many valued provisions will cease to exist.
The cuts are also unfair because they are not evenly applied. Districts, as we have been told, will be allowed a

717
10 per cent. increase in spending, but the counties will receive only a 1·5 per cent. increase. Is this another of the Secretary of State's attempts to divide and rule? He has no mandate in Wales, and he seeks to put those who have a mandate at one another's throats.
In my county of South Glamorgan, £8 million will have to be cut from the budget this year. Up to 600 jobs will be lost, at a time of huge unemployment. Almost 15 per cent. are out of work in my constituency alone.
The cuts are being made when there is an unprecedented imposition of what should be taught in schools and how it should be taught. Counties such as South Glamorgan are forced into an ever-narrowing curriculum. The Gradgrind, Dickensian view of teaching is in the ascendancy among Conservative Members and is now to be pushed on the people of Wales.
In South Glamorgan, we have the nationally acclaimed South Glamorgan youth orchestra, which is now under severe threat. Music is to become an optional extra in schools, available only to those who can pay. That may not be of great concern to some Conservative Members, but Labour Members believe that a subject such as music should be available to all, because it enriches all people.
Youth and community education is to be decimated at a time when it is most needed. There is 30 per cent. youth unemployment in parts of South Glamorgan, yet youth and community education faces a cut of £750,000.
There has been much discussion about outdoor pursuit centres and about the centre at Story Arms. All the outdoor pursuits centres, not only those run by South Glamorgan county council, are in danger of closing.
Mr. Jonathan Evans indicated dissent.
Mr. Jones: Yes, they are. The hon. Gentleman should talk to people at more of them. All outdoor pursuit centres now have to compete for the same area of the market. They are all trying to get companies to spend a lot of money on sending their executives and directors on leadership courses, because those people can pay.
The outdoor pursuit centres were established to give an essential part of education to the pupils who should receive it as a right and not because they could afford it. I used to take groups of biology A-level pupils to the Story Arms centre. Field studies are an important part of the geography A-level course. I also used to take disabled children to the centre. It is a great thing to see the satisfaction and sense of achievement that those pupils can get from outdoor pursuit centres. That opportunity will be denied them by Conservative cuts.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman has put his points forcefully to the House. Has he put them to Russell Goodway, the leader of South Glamorgan county council?
Mr. Jones: Yes, I have. I have urged Russell Goodway to try to find cuts in other parts of the budget. I know that that will mean that someone else suffers, but because I have a personal interest in the matter, I have made that suggestion. If Councillor Goodway tells me that he cannot find extra funding and that he cannot find any other area to cut, I shall understand his position.
Storey Arms needs a little more time in which to try to win a reprieve. That will not help the people of South Glamorgan who want to use the service. If it survives, it will do so because it takes in more external funding, and
718
it will have to cut the service it now provides for children in South Glamorgan schools. From that point of view, they will still have lost.
Economic development in South Glamorgan has had to face cuts. What a time to do that! The county council has been one of the foremost in developing links with industry. Unfortunately, there will have to be cuts in economic development.
Some £400,000 must be cut from discretionary awards to students, which means that the poor will no longer be able to afford to take up many important courses. Taiwan now sends more people to university than Britain does, yet we shall have to cut discretionary awards, which will mean that students cannot take up courses.
The council is being forced to cut care for the elderly and for those with mental health problems. Those least able to cope are having to pay the price for the Government's mismanagement of the economy.
Even the fire service does not escape the cuts. A new fire station is due to be built in Pentwyn in my constituency, but the project is now to be delayed. The fire service in parts of east Cardiff will no longer be able to meet its statutory attendance times. That is why I said that some people will die as a result of the cuts.
It is shameful for the Secretary of State, who has no mandate from the people of Wales, to come here to impose cuts on us. I hope that Conservative Members will have the courage to vote with us at 7 pm.
5.56 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that the Secretary of State for Wales had imposed on Wales the most swingeing cuts imaginable. The reality is that, over the last two years, there has been an increase of 25 per cent. A further increase of 3.1 per cent. is scheduled in the forthcoming year. That is hardly a brutal cut in services.
I heard the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) suggest that a Conservative Member of honour would vote against the Government on this occasion. I make it perfectly clear to him that I thoroughly support the Government's plan and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. Given the stringency with which the Government need to approach spending in general, my right hon. Friend's announcement today is suprisingly and reassuringly generous.
Mr. Dafis: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the difference between the standard spending assessment allowed by the Welsh Office to Dyfed county council and the budget that the council requires to maintain standard services at last year's level is £20 million.
Mr. Sweeney: That makes one wonder how that local authority has run its affairs in the past. The perception of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) differs from the reality. It is rather like George Orwell's slogan in "Animal Farm":
"Four legs good, two legs bad."
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to a heart-breaking case known to him. I am sure that we could all look into our postbags or reminisce about our surgeries and refer to hard cases that would help to illustrate the difficulties facing local and national Government at the present time.
As Conservative Members are well aware, unfortunately we cannot spend money that we do not have. It is

719
because we have been attempting to do that—[Interruption.] Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. If they do not like us borrowing so much, they must accept that it is natural to take a grip on public spending. Local government must share part of that burden.
If local and national Government do not take a grip on public spending, private individuals will have to shoulder the entire burden. People have made it clear to me in correspondence and at my surgeries that they cannot shoulder a growing burden of Government debt. They cannot and will not do that. If they are pushed, the result will be job losses. The wealth creators will be driven under, and that cannot be good for any of us. In the long term, there would be a reduction in the services which Opposition Members complain that we are jeopardising.
This is a fair settlement that is in the interests of the Welsh economy and the Welsh people. To attack my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not being Welsh and for not representing a Welsh constituency is cheap in the extreme and irrelevant. The public will appreciate that, as usual, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has driven a hard bargain in the interests of the people of Wales, and has done a good job for us today.
6.2 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: The best measuring rod of whether local government finance is fair must be whether it responds to people's needs. I have always believed that investment and finance should go where the need is greatest. The Welsh Office has recognised that my constituency of Blaenau Gwent is the second most deprived borough in Wales. If one were to visit my constituency, one would see high levels of unemployment. Those who are employed are on low wages. We have some of the worst housing stock in Wales, and some of the most severe health problems.
I want to highlight the poverty and deprivation in Blaenau Gwent. In 1991–92, 30 per cent. of the children in Blaenau Gwent received free school meals. In 1990–91, nearly 97 per cent. of the families with children at one school in Blaenau Gwent received income support. The 1991 census showed that pensioners in my constituency were more likely to be without a bath, shower or inside toilet than anywhere else in Gwent.
The unemployment rate in Blaenau Gwent is higher than the Welsh average. Young people in particular have tremendous skills, talents and creativity, but they are not being allowed to use them to benefit the communities that comprise Blaenau Gwent or to benefit the great industries in which they should be working.
Some people might say that local government finance should not concern itself with employment as it is really about providing public services. However, we all recognise that employment and public services are interlinked. I was reminded of that some weeks ago, when the local authority announced that many housing grants were being ended. The authority was approached by building contractors, who highlighted the adverse effect that that would have on housing in Blaenau Gwent. The contractors also stressed that many of their employees would be made redundant.
It is not just the contractors and people who build and repair the houses who are affected. A building supplier told me that, because of the contraction in the building
720
industry and the fact that the local authority was ending many housing grants, he would have to make many people unemployed.
Many of our services, particularly housing, have been affected. Blaenau Gwent has some of the worst housing stock in Wales. As a result of the Government's policies, Blaenau Gwent has been unable to build one new council house in the past nine years, even though there are 4,000 people on the housing waiting list. As I have said, in recent months the authority has announced that there will be even greater housing problems in future as a result of the cuts in housing grants.
With all those problems and many more, one would have expected the Government to respond positively to the problems of communities like Blaenau Gwent. However, that has not happened. The Welsh Office recently told Blaenau Gwent that its SSA for 1993–94 will be lower than the provisional figure that it issued just a month ago.
The borough will now have to make savings of £171,000 in addition to the cuts of £2.1 million that committees are being forced to make on the basis of the provisional spending limit. That equates to approximately £70 per household in the borough of Blaenau Gwent. The people who already face considerable deprivation will experience even more deprivation in terms of job losses and cuts in services.
Not only is that unfair: it is the economics of the madhouse. Government cuts in provision to local authorities in the middle of the recession will not save the Exchequer a penny. While the Government take money away from local authorities with one hand, they must with the other hand provide the Treasury with more money to meet the costs of unemployment. We now know that every unemployed person costs the state about £9,000 in benefits and lost taxes. That figure does not take into account the increase in the number of free school meals, housing benefit and many other social problems which increase as unemployment increases.
The Government do not believe in public expenditure. However, I believe in it, and I am committed to it. Public expenditure can be a liberating force which can allow young people to do something useful with their lives. It can bring dignity to the unemployed, the homeless and people experiencing sub-standard education. It gives them the opportunity to do something good with their lives.
Public expenditure also helps to transform our communities—the garden festival in my constituency is a classic example. That area would not have been transformed without public investment. The lesson we should learn is that we need a higher level of public expenditure if we are to regenerate those communities. What is more, decisions relating to that public expenditure should be taken increasingly by people who are elected, accountable and as close as possible to local people.
In contrast, over the past decade there has been a process of increased centralisation. In respect of that, there has been an increase in the use of the power of capping. That will obviously affect communities like Blaenau Gwent, which already suffer so much deprivation, adversely in the months to come. In addition to the centralisation of powers, those powers are also being hived off to Government quangos, to unelected and unaccountable business men and, occasionally, business women.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted the Financial Times, and said that unelected quango boards

721
"are now responsible for a fifth of all public expenditure—at £42,000 million, more than the total spending of local government, and a figure which has increased three times since 1979."—[Official Report, 3 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 344.]
The movement away from accountability, linked to decisions which are increasingly to be made by bankers under the Maastricht treaty, will increasingly force people to ask, "What is the use of voting if the people we vote for have no real decisions or real influence over decisions that affect our lives?" The system of local government finance, as stated by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) last week, is
"unfair, unjust and deliberately tailored to shackle, rather than free, local priorities and local enterprise."—[Official Report, 3 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 363.]
The hon. Gentleman was speaking about England, but the debate shows that, tragically, the situation is no different in Wales.
6.10 pm
Mr. Roger Evans: I welcome the settlement. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) almost gave the game away by saying in terms that Monmouth had done well this year. He is for once—almost uniquely—correct. However, table 1.6 shows that Monmouth's public expenditure per head of population is still the lowest of any district council in Wales—£123, as opposed to £194 in Blaenau Gwent.
In the peculiar system of standard spending assessments, until this year there has been a bias in favour of urban Wales and against rural Wales. In particular, in Monmouth it was felt very strongly in the past few years that a low-spending rural authority which happens, of course, to be Conservative-controlled, having extra costs as a result of not being an urban authority—for example, it costs much more to collect domestic refuse in the country—has been penalised in the past but not this year. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and I thoroughly welcome it.
It is not satisfactory to say that, somehow or other, the announcement is miserable and mean and that it will cause enormous anguish, although that argument has been articulated with brilliant skill by various hon. Members. The point at stake, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has said, is that we must look at the announcement in the context of the past three years which, including the year that we are discussing, show an increase of no less than 29 per cent.
A few hon. Members who are present happen to represent constituencies other than Welsh constituencies, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is again to be congratulated on achieving in Wales a better deal than obtains in England. The total standard spending in Wales per head is £901 in the year that we are talking about, as opposed to £856 in England, and the aggregate external finance per head in Wales is £812, compared with £698 in England. That is an enormously important benefit for the Welsh economy and for Welsh local government. It should be recognised as such, and my right hon. Friend should be congratulated.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) addressed us with eloquence and passion, but I fear that in the exuberance of his passion he paused to cast unnecessary scorn upon quadratic equations. The curious feature of the debate among the critics has been an absence of any analytical critique of the way in which standard
722
spending assessments have been calculated. The method of calculation has an enormous effect on distribution, which affects each and every local authority in our constituencies.
I am probably more critical than many, but, there is an attempt to measure social and other needs, on analysis, and costs and to average out Government expenditure so that everybody receives a reasonable and fair share. Hon. Members have expressed the needs of their local authorities, but I am most surprised that critics of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have not aimed their fire at the basis of the system. Perhaps that is because it commands general support.
I welcome the second paper, which relates to capping. It is a matter of great regret that it is necessary, but Conservative Governments have or should have learnt from the experience of past years. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had a rating revaluation in 1963 and we lost a general election in 1964; we had a rating revaluation in 1973 and we lost a general election in 1974. That was largely because local authorities of another political persuasion proceeded to increase expenditure, exercising their local powers to do so. Indeed, we saw that strikingly with the poll tax in Gwent, when Gwent county council was elected in 1989 for four years. In its first year of poll tax, it showed very little reticence in raising the figure to unacceptable levels.
Local authorities cannot have it both ways. They spend an enormous proportion of public money. There must be some accountability to the Treasury for the burdens on the taxpayer and on the economy. At the same time, local authorities cannot escape responsibility for their spending decisions. It is all too easy to threaten cuts in the most essential, desirable and poignant services when a much more critical examination of how they run their affairs would be appropriate. I support both measures.
6.15 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: There appears to be a hidden agenda for Newport borough's finances and rate support grant settlement. Last Saturday morning, as I was thinking of getting ready to go to Cardiff for the international to witness the eclipse of England, I started to open my post. One of the first letters that I opened was from the Welsh Office. It informed me that the Secretary of State had accepted the findings of his inspector, Mr. R. Davies, following a public inquiry in October 1991 into the application by the American concern, Browning-Ferris Environmental Services Ltd., to build a waste disposal plant in the Lliswerry area of Newport.
That disgraceful decision was made by a Welsh Office Minister representing an English constituency. The findings on page 40, paragraph 9.226 of the report even seem to acknowledge that Newport in south Wales will be seen as a dustbin for the receipt of waste from all over the world. Page 41, paragraph 9.30 of that report points out that there is a risk of noticeable pollution, but that is qualified by stating that the risk is negligible.
Mr. Sweeney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That remark does not appear to be at all relevant to the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): So far as I can gather, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is talking about financial matters which fall within the general ambit of the debate.
Mr. Hughes: This matter will affect the finances of Newport borough council.
The public will rightly question whether the vapours pouring from the stack at the plant will be cancer-causing. That is a natural fear. What is not in dispute is the company's proposal. The report states:
"The proposal would be a facility for the reception, storage and treatment of aqueous and oily wastes using a variety of well-established non-thermal treatment techniques, such as neutralization, oxidation, reduction, de-watering and chemical demulsification. The wastes would arise from the South-west Region and would include inorganic sludges and oily wastes from the automobile and steel industries…food wastes: usually classified into 4 waste types (a) sludges, (b) acidic wastes, (c) oily wastes and (d) other aqueous wastes requiring specialized handling or treatment."
Mr. Llew Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the firm, Browing-Ferris, to which he referred has been taken to court in the United States, prosecuted and found guilty of breaking environmental legislation? Can he also confirm that Browing-Ferris has connections with the criminal world in the United States?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear to me that the hon. Member is starting to go wide of the financial implications. He must stick with that to remain in order.
Mr. Hughes: I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Smith) said. I shall make a brief reference to the point that he made.
I have outlined what I would call a nice cocktail which is close to a heavily built-up area. Then there is the record of the company involved. A while ago, Greenpeace sent me a dossier on Browning-Ferris. According to that dossier, toxic waste in the United States is closely linked with organised crime, and Browing-Ferris is right in the thick of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Member is now going out of order. He must return to finance.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Obviously, my hon. Friend is raising a serious issue—the pollution which could be caused by the plant. Does he know whether Newport borough council, in preparing its estimates for the coming financial year, took into account all the extra work which would be required by the environmental health department and other Departments to police the plant? Those departments opposed the plant. More importantly, has the Welsh Office taken any account of that extra work in the money that it is giving to Newport?
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend illustrates the point which I am trying to make. What if charges similar to those already made against the company were to happen in Newport? I shall give some examples. In 1984, in Williamsburg, Ohio, investigators charged that Browing-Ferris officials poured contaminated rain water directly into a tributary of local drinking water. In 1985, a grand jury indicted BFI, CECOS and their former employees on 96 counts of violations at the hazardous waste pits. There are many more examples of similar charges made against the company. Such charges certainly impinge directly on the finances of Newport borough council and the revenue support grant settlement. For example, there would be the cost of more environmental health officers and the need for extra police for such a questionable plant.
724
I have a letter dated 4 February from Mrs. C. R. Jones at the Welsh Office, authorised by the Secretary of State, to Messrs. Davis Llewellyn and Jones, chartered architects and town planners in Cardiff who act on behalf of Browing-Ferris. Mrs. C. R. Jones says:
"A further letter will be sent to you in connection with your clients' claim for an award of costs against Newport Borough Council."
That is relevant to the financial aspect. In rejecting the company's application, the council was merely acting in line with the wishes of the town's charge payers. Their disquiet was expressed through mass meetings, an all-night vigil, petitions, and so forth. Where is the democracy in all that? Will the Welsh Office meet the cost of the public inquiry and so on?
There are many risks involved for farmers with cattle and agricultural products, and there is a traffic hazard in the conveyance of the waste matter. The council has gone out of its way to make Newport a more attractive place to live. At a stroke, that is all being put in jeopardy. Property values will drop and people will want to move out of the area. Are those matters not relevant to Newport borough council's finances and its revenue support grant settlement?
The decision will blight the whole of south Wales. Proud south Wales, which produced the coal that fuelled the industrial revolution, is now to be reduced to a dustbin for the receipt of waste from all over the world. The people of Newport do not want the plant, and neither does the council. This thoroughly undemocratic decision is an indictment of the Government and, more particularly, the present incumbent at the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State has failed to speak up for Wales. If he has any conscience left, he will resign.
6.26 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On 12 November 1992, the Secretary of State set the scene for the current settlement. He said:
"I consider my proposals to be realistic in the current economic climate. They give a level of settlement above predicted inflation."
For all I know, the Secretary of State might genuinely believe that. If he believes it, it is self-delusion on a grand scale. He also said:
"I recognise that local government in Wales will have to make hard choices about spending priorities if authorities are to stay within my plans."
How right he was. That passage is an absolutely classic understatement.
The Secretary of State said that his capping criteria are designed to ensure that essential services are maintained and taxpayers are shielded from unreasonable levels of council tax. That is all laudable. However, the people of Wales are not reassured when they realise that those were the words of advice and direction of a member of a Government who were, at least notionally, at the helm during the stormy seas of Black Wednesday.
If the millions of pounds that were thrown away on a hopeless exercise were available to local services in Wales, we would be facing a much brighter future. As always, the Government say, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Earlier, when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was referring to the closure of rural schools, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West

725
(Mr. Richards) was grinning like a Cheshire cat. He can grin; he sends his child to a public school in England. That shows how much care and concern he has for Wales.
Mr. Richards: I point out to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that all three of my childen have gone to Ysgol Gymraeg Ynisgedwyn in Ystradgynlais.
Mr. Llwyd: Is there a child currently at an English public school?
Mr. Richards: There is a child currently at an English public school and there are still two children at Ysgol Gymraeg Ynisgedwyn primary school in Ystradgynlais.
Mr. Llwyd: The Meirionnydd district council and the Aberconwy district council are the two councils in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that councils largely agreed with his criteria. Unfortunately, those two councils are certainly not in agreement. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made the point earlier and I will not dwell on it. The point is well made and I support it.
In discussing the position of Meirionnydd district council, it may assist the House if I mention one or two facts. That council has strong misgivings about the use of standard spending assessments as anything other than a crude way of measuring need and, consequently, about their limited value as a method of determining the level of expenditure.
The formula for calculating the SSA is relatively simple and the number of factors contained in it are relatively few, but it can produce only a general answer. As we know, it affects not only the revenue support grant but the level of expenditure.
Tax capping is both undemocratic and damaging to the interests of the public. The 1993–94 settlement contains a permitted increase of only £59,000 in Meiriormydd's budget. That represents 1 per cent. Is that the only way to ensure adequacy of service? It certainly is not. It may save a few pounds here and there, but it will inevitably mean savage cuts in services. The net effect of the proposals will be to render the district council a mere puppet of central Government. That is in line with the thinking of the Tories, who wish to impose their will on Wales via the Welsh Office.
However, the councillors are at the sharp end. They have to face public disquiet about cuts imposed by this cowardly Government. Undoubtedly, the tax-capping proposals in Meirionnydd will result in a loss of jobs. I am told by officers of the council that there will be job losses of up to 8 per cent. in the non-manual work force. That is a savage and bitter blow to our local economy. Worse still, it is a blow which is entirely avoidable.
As a responsible authority, Meirionnydd raised the matter with the Secretary of State, only to receive a bland reply which was economic in content and negative in tone. I told the Secretary of State on 14 December in this Chamber that members of the local authority who visited him and his officers returned with an overwhelming feeling that the Welsh Office would not listen to them. Perhaps that is what the Welsh Office wants, but it is clearly not what my constituents and the people of Wales want. They all deserve better.
Aberconwy borough council tells me that the criteria will mean a cut in current spending plans of some £1 million. That will inevitably translate into lower levels of
726
service, job losses and the cancellation of capital schemes. The council will also have to look to reduce spending. That could affect jobs at the sharp end of service provision—for example, in parks, gardens, maintenance and so on.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Llywd: No. I am sorry, but I have limited time.
A major point to consider is that inevitably the level of available finance will be lower. That will cause the council serious problems in fulfilling its statutory duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and all that it entails, the Children Act 1989 and the care in the community provisions which are to be implemented soon.
In addition, the commutation of loans for improvements grants does not appear to reflect the inteution to be neutral on budgets. It is of the utmost importance to Aberconwy to ensure that the borough is attractive to tourists and visitors because much of the economy relies on tourism. The lower level of provision could easily affect the attractiveness of the area which, in turn, will affect hotels, guest houses and so on throughout the borough. Of course, residents will be adversely affected, too.
The serious problems that district councils face are almost nothing compared with the problems that county councils face. The way in which the SSAs are calculated means that the counties will lose £28 million this year. The county SSAs are set to rise by only 1.6 per cent. That is an average figure for Welsh counties; the figure for Gwynedd is only 0.4 per cent. The mere £35 million allowance for the introduction of care in the community represents nothing like the real cost.
It is disheartening to note that, during the debate on 12 February last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), among others, made a special plea to the Secretary of State for additional funding if care in the community was to be introduced with any confidence. Alas, those pleas and the pleas of others fell on deaf ears. It is evident from the current plans that the Government do not want to listen.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) said during the last Welsh Question Time, as a result of the capping criteria Gwynedd county council will have to cut £3 million from its standstill budget. That is not a measure which will ensure the provision of essential services.
Gwynedd county council has been hard at work in the past two years finding 3 per cent. cuts each year. Only recently it had to face the appalling prospect of closing a specialist home for the elderly infirm when it had no other place to house them. Thankfully, that cut was averted, but I keep thinking of that little boy with his thumb in the breached dyke. How long can the council hold on?
The highly professional team of officers and conscientious councillors in Gwynedd are desperately worried, and rightly so. They must now consider cuts in nursery education. Looming on the horizon we have the appalling spectre of wholesale closures of rural schools, with the consequent damage to countless communities, the culture and the language.
The people of my constituency have had enough. If ever there was an easy time to explain the need for a fully

727
accountable and powerful assembly in Wales, this is it. If the Government persist, they will pay for their callousness and folly at the next election.
I wish to raise two specific points. The first is the poundage rate for non-domestic rates in Wales. It is unrealistically high. It means that small businesses in my community and elsewhere are under continuous seige. The so-called party of small businesses is selling those businesses down the river in exactly the same way as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did 18 months ago. He pledged that the hill livestock compensatory allowance payments were safe in his hands, but now he wants to cut them by 26 per cent. They are the kind of Government with whom we are dealing. Why cannot the Government recognise the plight of small businesses and scrap the uniform business rate? In the short term, why do not the Government introduce a more equitable poundage?
The second specific point that I want to raise is the 12.5 per cent. non-collection factor used to arrive at the tax base rate. It is unrealistically low. That means that £261 for band D is too low. That should be revised as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State's pledge to maintain services at a reasonable cost is an empty platitude.
Support for the Tory party in Wales is at an all-time low. That is no wonder. The day of reckoning will soon be here when Tories disappear completely off the Welsh map. I look forward to that day in the interests of social justice and decency.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Paul Murphy.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When is it possible for representatives of the biggest county in Wales and the one most savagely affected by the cuts to participate in the debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker: There is always a difficulty when more people seek to speak than it is possible to call in the time available.
6.36 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: I appreciate, even with an extended debate, the inevitability of the shortness of time for the important issues that have been raised. Certainly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about Mid Glamorgan will have been noted by the people in that county and in the Principality.
The debate highlights the constantly shifting sands of local government finance in Britain and Wales. The House should realise that the Conservatives have passed 152 Acts of Parliament affecting local government since they have been in office. Virtually every one of those measures adversely affected the functions and services offered by our councils, and virtually every one was opposed by the people of Wales.
The theme of the debate has been that the Conservative party has no mandate from the people of Wales to impose its will on the local authorities and their budgets. The Government have produced an unstable local government finance system. Within the short space of four years, the
728
people of Wales have gone from the rates to the poll tax and then to the council tax. The poll tax was abolished 355 days after it was introduced, yet the Conservative party lectures our local authorities about financial prudence.
The instability of the system, combined with its super-complexity—with talk of SSA, RSG, AEF and all the rest—have made it inevitable that there is no longer any public confidence in the local government finance system in Wales or England.
During the past few years, there has been tremendous uncertainty over the annual settlements in Wales, which—I am sorry to say—has been made worse by the constant dithering about local government reform. I understand that a report about the transitional costs of such reform has been placed in the Library today, and I am sure that that will not help Welsh councils.
Last year, the district councils were badly hit. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) said that environmental health monitoring of chemical waste plants will be affected. In my constituency, the ReChem toxic waste plant was badly afected by cuts in district allocations last year.
This year, the county councils have been affected. Even though there have been quarrels over the so-called tier split, the Welsh district and county councils are united in their opposition to the settlement and disagree with their increasing lateness. Hon. Members will recall that, four or five years ago, we debated settlements as early as December or November, but it has got later every year. The authorities are also united in thinking that the business rate has been reduced for no apparent reason, which will cost local authorities millions of pounds.
The publication of the original figures that the local authorities received lacked care, and was sloppy and badly managed. The collapse of Municipal Mutual Insurance, which the Government did not aid, has meant that many councils have had to budget for increased insurance costs.
The settlement is inadequate; it follows the tradition of underfunding Welsh local government, which has led to the long-term neglect of our roads, schools and houses. One county treasurer said:
"The settlement is the most severe imposed on county councils in recent years, and appears to be based on adherence to a formula which penalises budgetary prudence, and rewards those local authorities which paid least heed to Government guidelines in 1990–91."
The treasurer of Swansea district council said:
"This is the worst settlement in my 12 years experience as Treasurer."
Both agree that the revenue settlement is at least £132 million short of what Welsh councils need.
The districts have come off better this year, with a 9 per cent. increase, but one third of all Welsh districts will have difficulty in setting their budgets; five have provisional increases of less than 2 per cent., and seven have increases of less than 5 per cent. Our two greatest towns, Cardiff and Swansea, coincidentally must make cuts of £3·5 million each.
Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State has been a little disingenuous when talking in terms of the district and county councils working together and coming to an agreement? In fact, he set out to pit one against the other. The suggestion that they would go along together is about as likely as putting two ferrets in a sack and getting them to kiss.
Mr. Murphy: My experience of ferrets is very limited, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about the general principle.
When he opened the debate, the Secretary of State referred to local authority capital spending and said that it was up. That does not apply to the districts. There has been an 18 per cent. reduction in the districts' BCAs. The housing budget is down by 19 per cent. and other approvals by 37 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) pointed out.
The urban programme has been cut in Wales, and in England it has disappeared. All those reductions are a result of the fact that the Welsh Office wants extra money for European supplementary credit approvals. They have robbed our districts to pretend that they have additionality rules for our European moneys.
Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned capital receipts, which still need to be used. I know that they have been used for 1993, but we need a commitment today that their use will be extended until 1994 and beyond.
The Council of Welsh Districts also wants at least £200 million of the set-aside receipts in council coffers released during the next three years, because the districts have suffered a reduction of about 60 per cent. in capital money since 1990.
The capital budgets of Colwyn, Torfaen, Cynon Valley, Rhondda and Cardiff have all been substantially reduced. As most of my hon. Friends have said, Welsh county councils have been hit by massive revenue reductions. My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) have all rightly referred to the fact that education—the largest part of local authority spending—has been decimated by the settlements. It is a great irony that I and some of my hon. Friends have spent the past three months in the Education Bill Committee, wasting our time talking about grant-maintained, opted-out schools and the rest of it. That is a supreme irrelevance to the provision of education for the people of Wales.
All that time wasted and all that money squandered, yet discretionary grants in Wales have been cut and cut again. Support for the Welsh language, peripatetic music services, the education psychology service and school building and maintenance systems have all been cut, at a time when people are beginning to understand that it is the provision of education services for young people in Wales that is important and not the pursuit of dogma and doctrine.
Social services are also suffering from the county council cuts. For example, Gwent has had to cut its toy library, playground equipment and child abuse publicity. The police have not escaped and there have been cuts in training, vehicle maintenance and operational equipment. In Gwent, my police authority, 13 police stations are threatened with closure. That is happening at a time when vigilante groups roam Wales and crime is on the increase.
All that affects our jobs, as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, since for every 10,000 jobs lost, £900 million is lost to the taxpayer. To deny job losses, as the Secretary of State and the Minister do, is to live in cloud cuckoo land —like their belief that the average band D council tax in Wales will be £262. It is more likely to be well over £300, and will range between £270 and £380.
730
Doubtless the Minister will say that he will not hesitate to use his capping powers, but this is the first time that capping criteria have been published for Wales. The former Secretary of State, Lord Walker, and the present Secretary of State have both said, in speech after speech in the House and in Wales, that there was a consensus in Wales between local authorities and the Welsh Office that there was no need for capping criteria to be laid down because, on balance, Welsh local authorities have had a responsible attitude towards spending and have been nothing like the examples given by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who was describing a totally different world. Why is it necessary to sour relations between local government and the Welsh Office by laying down unnecessary capping criteria?
The settlement does more than that. It is part of the Government's erosion of Welsh local democracy. Why can quangos get money at the drop of a hat? Contrast that with the impoverishment of our services and the adverse effects on the quality of Welsh life that will undoubtedly flow from the constant underfunding of Welsh local government and from the settlement in particular.
The Government cap our councils, cut off their finances and restrict their powers. At least we know that, despite that, our Welsh local authorities will continue to provide services to the people who elect them. They will protect those people from the dogmatic excesses of the Government and they still remain the best hope for effective and representative democracy in Wales. I urge the House to vote against the motion.
6.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I rush to acknowledge the only point in the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) with which I could agree. I join him in congratulating the Welsh rugby team on its achievement on Saturday—at the very least 10–9 is a statistic on which none of us could disagree. I even welcome his suggestion that we might have further discussion about what happened on Saturday. I am sure that all hon. Members would find that more productive than today's debate.
If I was charitable, I would describe the standard of debate from the Opposition as, at best, wishful and typically negative—no new ideas, the same old sterile debate. The hon. Member for Caerphilly came out with his predictable wish list for spending. Of course he complained about the capping proposals, but it was most significant that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) asked him what he would do in the same situation, answer had he not. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) asked him what he would do about surplus places in schools, answer had he not.
Instead, the hon. Gentleman resorted to a ritual attack on what he chooses to describe as quangos. Such criticism is rich from a party that favours the ultimate quango, a Welsh assembly, which the people of Wales have rejected decisively. It is typical that the Labour party favours the introduction of such an assembly—another socialist, centralist body that would take powers away from local councils.
How quickly is the illusion of Bournemouth ripped away. The vain attempts to put a Clinton mask on the face of the Labour party is all as nothing 24 hours later. To put

731
it in a proper, or rather historical, context, Labour Members should be properly identified as the Bourbons of France—they learn nothing, they forget nothing. Little wonder that the editorial in the Western Mail—the national newspaper of Wales—after the general election acknowledged that the present Labour party was unelectable.
Despite the impression that some Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), seek to give, the economic difficulties we face are not confined to this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West pointed out, economic problems are experienced throughout the world. This is not the occasion, however, for a discourse on the state of the world economy; the House is well aware of the problems.
It would be irresponsible to set a settlement level that the country cannot afford. I find it difficult to reconcile arguments for a higher level of resources in the current circumstances and the concerns I have heard expressed about the possible level of the council tax in Wales. Opposition Members do not appear to appreciate that it is the taxpayer who must foot the bill for public expenditure. Fortunately, the Government appreciate that; that is why we have had to make the necessary decisions on public spending—decisions that affect central Government, too; it is not just local government that is having to face up to hard choices.
The settlement package that we propose gives local government an increase in resources above the rate of inflation, which continues to decline, before the £37.5 million additional resources that we are providing for care in community are taken into account. It gives local authorities scope to raise a higher proportion of revenue from local taxation. It should also keep council tax bills at reasonable levels.
The settlement provides a sound basis for the introduction of the council tax in April. Despite the gloomy prognostications of Opposition Members, the tax will be welcomed by the people of Wales, who will see it as a fair and balanced system of local taxation. Bills will be based on the valuation band of the property in question. Single-adult households will receive a 25 per cent. discount on their bills, and householders on income support will pay nothing. Those on low incomes will be eligible for council tax benefit. A range of other discounts and exemptions will also be available.
If local authorities budget in line with our plans, the majority of Welsh households will pay less than they did under the community charge, and subsequently less than they did under the old domestic rating system. The prophets of doom underestimate the Government's determination to see the new system work and the high degree of professionalism that local government in Wales will bring to its administration. Local authorities have invested an enormous amount of energy and effort in preparing the new tax. They are ready for 1 April and I commend them on their achievement.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) was naturally concerned about his own country, and he echoed the concern raised by the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) about care in the community. The hon. Member for
732
Clwyd, South-West rightly reminded us that Clwyd county council is receiving an additional £6.6 million for care in the community. That is part of a total increase in spending for care in the community which amounts to £35.9 million. That sum is not simply what the Department of Social Security would have spent—around £28 million: we have found an additional £8 million to cover the extra work involved.
The distribution of money for care in the community follows the existing patterns relating to Department of Social Security spending, but it also reflects the need to achieve more flexible forms of community care. Exceptionally, we will identify the amounts needed for care in the community in each county in Wales. I want to ensure that the situation is monitored to ensure that our desires are realised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor spoke movingly about outdoor centres, 10 of which are in his constituency. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many private conversations going on.
Mr. Jones: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thought that it was significant that my hon. Friend was able to observe that, out of the 10 outdoor centres, only one, owned and operated by South Glamorgan council, is threatened with closure—the other nine, which are owned by English or Welsh councils will continue to operate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, together with the hon. Members for Cardiff, Central and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke about the provision of music education in South Glamorgan council. I was especially struck by a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Andrew Swift, to the Western Mail entitled "Silencing the Land of Song", in which he repeatedly asked what other services provided by South Glamorgan council would suffer the same level of cut as that to be imposed on the provision of music education. How can a cut of 90 per cent. in the provision of any service, particularly music education, be justified?
Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jones: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. time is short, thanks to his hon. Friends.
If South Glamorgan council had said that a cut of between 1 and 5 per cent., or even slightly more, was intended, we might have understood, but to try to impose a 90 per cent. cut speaks volumes about the political party that is in control of that council. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth would join me in condemning that council when one considers the advances that have been made in Cardiff and the way in which my party made St. David's hall possible. The facilities for the arts in Cardiff have been expanded, but now music provision is being subject to a disgraceful attack, which is a source of great regret to me.
South Glamorgan council has until the end of this month to finalise its budget, and I imagine that it will set a budget in the region of £272 million. I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth shares my hope that it will listen to all the expressions of opinion about the provision of music education in South Glamorgan. I hope that that council will yet change its mind and reverse the planned 90 per cent. cut.

733
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to a case concerning Miss J. I am sure that he will understand that I cannot discuss that case now, but if he would care to write to me, I shall certainly pursue it on his behalf. I was drawn by his oratory, which reminded us of his expertise in the courts—after all, he is one of Her Majesty's counsel. How he managed to weave into his argument references to foreplay and quadratic equations was not readily understandable until he told us that an expert in such equations was sitting behind him, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I hope that that hon. Gentleman will forgive me, for I had thought that his expertise related to railway timetables.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West reminded us to Labour's deplorable public expenditure record, both past and present. He made a strong case for the many deserving local causes for which he would advocate council funding. I was disturbed by the admittedly alarmist observation by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central that people would die. I have checked with Welsh Office officials, and have found no such representations that have been made to us, in any such terms, by any council in Wales. I fear that the hon. Gentleman will wish to reflect on his ill-judged comments, and on his sweeping condemnation of everyone involved in Welsh local government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) was right to remind us that we must get a grip on spending. He pointed out that the most obvious consequence of uncontrolled spending would be the burden of increased job losses——
It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [29 January].
The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 239.

Division No. 142]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Aitken, Jonathan

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Alexander, Richard

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Burns, Simon

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Burt, Alistair

Amess, David

Butler, Peter

Ancram, Michael

Butterfill, John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Ashby, David

Carrington, Matthew

Aspinwall, Jack

Carttiss, Michael

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Cash, William

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Baldry, Tony

Churchill, Mr

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Clappison, James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bates, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Batiste, Spencer

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bellingham, Henry

Coe, Sebastian

Bendall, Vivian

Colvin, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Congdon, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Conway, Derek

Body, Sir Richard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Booth, Hartley

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Couchman, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Cran, James

Bowden, Andrew

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

Bowis, John

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Brandreth, Gyles

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Brazier, Julian

Day, Stephen

Bright, Graham

Deva, Nirj Joseph

734

Dickens, Geoffrey

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dicks, Terry

Knapman, Roger

Dorrell, Stephen

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Dover, Den

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

Duncan, Alan

Knox, David

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Dunn, Bob

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Dykes, Hugh

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Eggar, Tim

Legg, Barry

Elletson, Harold

Leigh, Edward

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lidington, David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lightbown, David

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Evennett, David

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Faber, David

Lord, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Luff, Peter

Fenner, Dame Peggy

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

MacKay, Andrew

Fishburn, Dudley

Maclean, David

Forman, Nigel

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Forth, Eric

Madel, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Maitland, Lady Olga

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Major, Rt Hon John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Malone, Gerald

Freeman, Roger

Mans, Keith

French, Douglas

Marland, Paul

Fry, Peter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gale, Roger

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gardiner, Sir George

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Garnier, Edward

Merchant, Piers

Gill, Christopher

Milligan, Stephen

Gillan, Cheryl

Mills, Iain

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Moate, Sir Roger

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Monro, Sir Hector

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Moss, Malcolm

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Needham, Richard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Nelson, Anthony

Grylls, Sir Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hague, William

Nicholls, Patrick

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Norris, Steve

Hampson, Dr Keith

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hannam, Sir John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hargreaves, Andrew

Ottaway, Richard

Haselhurst, Alan

Page, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Paice, James

Hawksley, Warren

Patnick, Irvine

Hayes, Jerry

Patten, Rt Hon John

Heald, Oliver

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Pawsey, James

Hendry, Charles

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Pickles, Eric

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Horam, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rathbone, Tim

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Redwood, John

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Richards, Rod

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Riddick, Graham

Jack, Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Robathan, Andrew

Jenkin, Bernard

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Key, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

King, Rt Hon Tom

Sackville, Tom

735

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Shaw, David (Dover)

Thurnham, Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tracey, Richard

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Tredinnick, David

Shersby, Michael

Trend, Michael

Sims, Roger

Trotter, Neville

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Twinn, Dr Ian

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Viggers, Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Speed, Sir Keith

Walden, George

Spencer, Sir Derek

Waller, Gary

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Ward, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spink, Dr Robert

Waterson, Nigel

Spring, Richard

Watts, John

Sproat, Iain

Wells, Bowen

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Whitney, Ray

Stephen, Michael

Whittingdale, John

Stern, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Streeter, Gary

Wilkinson, John

Sumberg, David

Willetts, David

Sweeney, Walter

Wilshire, David

Sykes, John

Wolfson, Mark

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thomason, Roy

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mr. James Arbuthnot.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clelland, David

Adams, Mrs Irene

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ainger, Nick

Coffey, Ann

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Allen, Graham

Corbett, Robin

Alton, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Corston, Ms Jean

Armstrong, Hilary

Cousins, Jim

Austin-Walker, John

Cox, Tom

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cryer, Bob

Barnes, Harry

Cummings, John

Barron, Kevin

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Battle, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Bayley, Hugh

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

Beckett, Margaret

Dafis, Cynog

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Darling, Alistair

Bennett, Andrew F.

Davidson, Ian

Benton, Joe

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Berry, Dr. Roger

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

Betts, Clive

Denham, John

Blair, Tony

Dewar, Donald

Blunkett, David

Dixon, Don

Boateng, Paul

Dobson, Frank

Boyce, Jimmy

Donohoe, Brian H.

Boyes, Roland

Dowd, Jim

Bradley, Keith

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Eagle, Ms Angela

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

Eastham, Ken

Burden, Richard

Enright, Derek

Byers, Stephen

Etherington, Bill

Caborn, Richard

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Faulds, Andrew

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fisher, Mark

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Flynn, Paul

Cann, Jamie

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Foulkes, George

Chisholm, Malcolm

Fraser, John

Clapham, Michael

Fyfe, Maria

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Galloway, George

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Gapes, Mike

736

Garrett, John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

George, Bruce

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Gerrard, Neil

Morgan, Rhodri

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Morley, Elliot

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Godsiff, Roger

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Gordon, Mildred

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gould, Bryan

Mullin, Chris

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Murphy, Paul

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Grocott, Bruce

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Gunnell, John

O'Hara, Edward

Hain, Peter

Olner, William

Hall, Mike

O'Neill, Martin

Hanson, David

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hardy, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Harvey, Nick

Pickthall, Colin

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pike, Peter L.

Henderson, Doug

Pope, Greg

Heppell, John

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hinchliffe, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hoey, Kate

Prescott, John

Home Robertson, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Hood, Jimmy

Purchase, Ken

Hoon, Geoffrey

Quin, Ms Joyce

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Radice, Giles

Hoyle, Doug

Randall, Stuart

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Raynsford, Nick

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Reid, Dr John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hutton, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Ingram, Adam

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Rogers, Allan

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jamieson, David

Rowlands, Ted

Janner, Greville

Ruddock, Joan

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Sedgemore, Brian

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Simpson, Alan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Skinner, Dennis

Jowell, Tessa

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Keen, Alan

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Soley, Clive

Khabra, Piara S.

Spearing, Nigel

Kilfoyle, Peter

Spellar, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Leighton, Ron

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Steinberg, Gerry

Lewis, Terry

Stott, Roger

Litherland, Robert

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Livingstone, Ken

Straw, Jack

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tipping, Paddy

Loyden, Eddie

Turner, Dennis

Lynne, Ms Liz

Tyler, Paul

McAllion, John

Vaz, Keith

McCartney, Ian

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Macdonald, Calum

Wallace, James

McFall, John

Walley, Joan

McLeish, Henry

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McMaster, Gordon

Wicks, Malcolm

McNamara, Kevin

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

McWilliam, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Madden, Max

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Mahon, Alice

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Mandelson, Peter

Wilson, Brian

Marek, Dr John

Winnick, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wise, Audrey

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Worthington, Tony

Martlew, Eric

Wright, Dr Tony

Meacher, Michael

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Tellers for the Noes:

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Miller, Andrew

Mr. Thomas McAyoy.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 412), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining motion on local government finance ( Wales).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notions Amounts) Report (Wales) 1993–1994 (House of Commons Paper No. 413), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  British Railways (No. 4) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I put down a blocking motion to this Bill, but I have since withdrawn it, having been given assurances by British Rail that the parts of it to which I objected would be withdrawn. The Bill before us, however, still contains those parts, although a statement has been issued to the effect that British Rail will no longer pursue the parts of the Bill in question—work No. 1 and work No. 1A. I should like assurances that, if the Bill is passed, those works will not be put back in the Bill if it reaches Committee. Can the Chair reassure me about that?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am afraid that the Chair is not in a position to give any such assurances. Second Reading must take its course, whereupon alterations can be made at the Committee stage.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not extraordinary that the House should be invited on Second Reading to consider the Bill in this form while we have in our hands a statement from the promoters to the effect that certain clauses will immediately be removed from the Bill once it has been given a Second Reading? Surely the promoters have a duty to present the House with a Bill all of whose provisions they want enacted. It is rather insulting to the House to take up its valuable time in this way when the promoters have said—last Friday—that the Bill which will ultimately be enacted will be different from the one presented to us today.
  In my time, I have brought one or two private Bills to the House. Had I told the House before one such Bill had even been debated that by the time it received Royal Assent it would be quite different from its appearance on Second Reading, that would have been regarded as an abuse of the private Bill procedure. I therefore submit that there is a case for reintroducing the Bill in the form that the promoters want.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If it is an insult, I gather that it is an insult which happens from time to time with private Bills. This is not a matter over which I as the representative of the Speaker, have any control. The Bill must be allowed to take its course; no doubt those points can be made in the course of Second Reading.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is worth noting that what the promoters say in the letter in question is that the part of the Bill which would allow more imports of coal will be taken out. I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were correct to say that this is not an unusual method. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) knows only too well that when a private Bill to allow the importation of coal came before the House on another occasion he seemed quite happy with changes to it being nodded through.
  I hope that the promoters in this case will carry out what they have promised. I am pleased that my hon.

  739
  Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) has placed the matter on record so as to ensure, if the Bill reaches Committee, that it has been made clear in the House right at the outset that we expect the promoters to honour their agreement not to implement the part of the Bill which would allow more imports of coal to Britain.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think we must now move on to the Second Reading itself.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Although there is nothing unusual in the processes that we are discussing, in a few moments' time I should be able to give assurances which will satisfy those hon. Members who have raised points of order.
  The Bill, which has 37 clauses, was deposited in January last year, so it has had a fairly lengthy gestation. It is short and uncontroversial, but its provisions are important not only to enable British Rail or any successor body to operate a safe and reliable railway but to enable the efficient use of land by others by better integrating the railway with adjoining land uses. I shall explain the Bill's main provisions.
  When the Bill reaches Committee, British Rail will seek to withdraw works Nos. 1 and 1A and all associated provisions in the Bill. These were originally included to facilitate the carriage of imported coal from a deep sea port at Immingham to power stations in the Aire valley. However, the scheme for the coal terminal was abandoned and the needs of BR's customers no longer dictate those provisions. I hope that that assurance satisfies the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes).
  The promoters will also seek powers to withdraw clause 24 and associated provisions relating to a replacement car park at Macclesfield. The clause was included in the Bill to obtain land consequent upon the loss of existing car park capacity at Macclesfield station. However, the land in question is subject to the Macclesfield Inclosure Act 1796, which authorises the holding fairs. In view of that factor and Macclesfield borough council's representations, the board has agreed not to pursue the clause and to withdraw its provisions. Over the past few days, considerable interest has been expressed in the Macclesfield Inclosure Act. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has a copy to hand. I am sure that he will be disappointed to learn that clause 24 is to be withdrawn in Committee.
  Work No. 2 is to allow the diversion of approximately half a mile of the line between Cardiff and Aberdare through Mountain Ash on the south-east of Town bridge. This proposal originates from the Mountain Ash development study, jointly commissioned by the Welsh Development Agency, Mid Glamorgan county council and Cynon Valley borough council, and examines ways of revitalising the town centre.
  The study concluded that, with a series of road works, river straightening, a sewer diversion, and the diversion of the railway, there would be an area of land suitable for redevelopment. The council has already obtained planning permission for those works, which have the backing of the Welsh Development Agency and the co-operation of the
  740
  National Rivers Authority and all the other undertakers involved. It now awaits only the railway diversion to complete the necessary authorisations for the project. The development project at Mountain Ash hinges on the railway diversion taking place and, if the British Railways Board is not granted those powers, the project may fall. The entire project, including the costs of diverting the railway line, are to be met by Cynon Valley borough council and the Welsh Development Agency.
  The remainder of the Bill is mainly concerned with infrastructure operations and land use. Those include the closure of a bridge to road traffic at Hunslet East, Leeds. This follows Leeds city council's stopping up of Fewston avenue over the freight line between Osmondthorpe and Stourton to proceed with a residential development. The closure of this bridge is sought to prevent fly tipping and other unauthorised usage. The western footway over the bridge will be retained for the use of pedestrians.
  Another provision concerns the closure of Wheal Bois level crossing, Redruth, over the main London to Penzance line. This is a scarcely used route. I understand that there is only one regular vehicle user on the route and its closure is sought on safety grounds. A foot crossing will be retained for pedestrians.
  The closure of a private roadway over a bridge near Hartford beach, Cheshire, is also included. This closure is sought as the structure is in need of expensive repairs. The bridge was originally built to provide vehicular access but it is no longer used for this purpose. The access over the bridge is not a public right of way and is reduced to a little used and unsuitable means of passage for pedestrians.
  The Bill provides for the purchase of land at Ranskill in the district of Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire. This is to enable land to be used for a passing loop to carry the longer freight trains which will use this line after the opening of the channel tunnel. Without these passing loops the channel tunnel freight trains would need to be held farther south, thereby causing delay to this traffic. This, in turn, would mean that the board would not be able to offer as good a service to businesses in the north wishing to take full advantage of the economic opportunities that will be available when the channel tunnel opens.
  A further provision relates to the purchase and temporary use of land to permit the strengthening of the railway embarkment at Brigg, on the Gainsborough to Grimsby line. British Rail proposes the construction of a berm along the embankment between the old and new Ancholme rivers. This is considered a desirable improvement to an embankment which has had a history of instability. On either side are two sites which have been earmarked for development and can only benefit from improved arrangements. While the local authority has expressed various concerns about these works, these are directed to matters of detail and not to the desirability of the works themselves.
  Mr. Michael Brown: What sort of traffic does British Rail think will use that railway line? Why is BR prepared to invest so much of its additional resources from its limited budget on those two works? My hon. Friend said that the British Railways Board does not intend to proceed with the new chord line which, in conjunction with the works at Brigg, would have made sense because it would have provided a through service for freight traffic from Immingham to Sheffield and beyond. If the chord line at Shaftholme is withdrawn from the Bill, why is it necessary

  741
  for British Rail to spend money on the works at Brigg? I cannot imagine what kind of traffic will use that line as a result of the improvements.
  Mr. Waller: I have said that the embankment has a history of instability and that the reason for carrying out the works is that, essentially, two sites are earmarked for development on either side. This would be an appropriate time to improve the embankment to prevent further instability. We must bear in mind the fact that those developments may take place at some time in the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Michael Brown rose——
  Mr. Waller: It might be helpful if I were allowed to continue with my speech. I may be able to satisfy my hon. Friend after he has dealt with this point in his speech.
  Mr. Brown: The Bill directly affects my constituency and I should like my hon. Friend to appreciate the importance of the works to my constituency. My constituents, especially in Brigg, are anxious to pose some questions. They want to know how it is that, today, on 8 February 1993—just three years after British Rail proposed to close the line from Brigg to Gainsborough, until my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and I created a rumpus which caused BR to think better of it—it suddenly and miraculously proposes to spend so much money on these works.
  Mr. Waller: I am surprised that my hon. Friend is complaining about the fact that the line is not being closed. His usual practice is to complain that a line is being used less well than he thinks it deserves. The embankment has a 25-year history of instability and there have been several major slippings. As the remedial works which have been undertaken have not proved successful, it would seem natural to repair the line by improving the embankment. To do so it is necessary to acquire a certain amount of land which is not within the ownership of British Rail. That requires the provisions of the Bill, and that is why it is included in it.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Once the embankment has been improved, the speed limit of 30 mph can be raised to 70 mph, which might provide British Rail with a good route to coastal resorts and thus garner traffic from further afield. Would that not ensure the future of the railway rather than placing a question mark over it?
  Mr. Waller: It is true that there is a severe speed limit restriction along the line which, as British Rail wishes to provide a good service to its customers, it would be sensible to avoid. That is another good reason why British Rail wishes to proceed with the works.
  Mr. Jimmy Boyce: How much time will be saved if the Bill is passed? The statement from British Rail says that speed will be reduced from 75 mph to 30 mph, so how much time will be made up?
  Mr. Waller: I cannot say exactly how much time will be made up, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be an improvement to the service. It may be that, before the end of the debate, I shall be able to provide him with more detailed information about the timetable improvements which may be made. Glanford borough council has
  742
  expressed concern about the works, but BR is in discussion with it and is confident that the problems can be settled satisfactorily.
  The last main provision in the Bill concerns the temporary use of land at Queen Adelaide way, Station road, to allow the improvement of a superstructure bridge over the Great Ouse at Ely, Cambridgeshire. With electrification of the line to King's Lynn completed, the bridge, which has a 20 mph speed restriction, is now over-stressed for traffic requirements on the line. The remaining clauses are standard to all private Bills introduced by British Rail and I am sure that the House is familiar with them.
  It should be remembered that the Bill was introduced as part of British Rail's continuing efforts to maintain the railway networks, with due regard to economy, efficiency and safety. Regardless of ownership, our railways must be allowed to develop, with improvement of the services provided. The Bill does not form part of the proposed privatisation of the industry nor set up powers for matters other than important operational purposes. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to enable its provisions to receive early consideration in Committee.
  7.33 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): It may be helpful if I intervene now to give the House the Government's view on the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the railways board. The Department has no points outstanding on the Bill.
  It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers that they are seeking are justified. The Committee will be held in a better position than we are tonight to examine the Bill in detail. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Can my hon. Friend give us any idea of the Government's view on the increase in speed that the Bill will allow on the Gainsborough to Grimsby section? Have they taken into account the effect on people living close to the line of the increased noise that will result, just as we take such considerations into account when debating road and air transport?
  Mr. Norris: I had hoped to gallop through the last sentence of the most anodyne statement that I have ever made to the House without interruption, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in preventing me from doing that. I know that the matters that he raises are important to him, but they are matters better raised in the Committee, where they can be given the thorough airing that they need. If that satisfies my hon. Friend, or, frankly, even if it does not, I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed to Committee in the usual conventional way for the detailed consideration that he obviously believes that it needs.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I offer the support of the Opposition for the Bill. It is an historical oddity that such a minor Bill, dealing with relatively minor works, has to come before Parliament. We do not debate such Bills in respect of any other form of transport. The important point is that several of the measures proposed in

  743
  it are aimed at improving safety. Anybody who stands in the way of such measures because of the issues that are, at best, peripheral to the substance of the Bill carries a heavy responsibility.
  Nothing in the Bill is contentious. I hope that it receives its Second Reading. I only regret that we have to play out this farce for the next two and a half hours before we find whether there are 100 Members of Parliament to vote on it.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made a somewhat odd point. I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to ask a question about noise. That was a serious intervention, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not considered what effect trains travelling at 75 mph rather than 30 mph between Gainsborough and Grimsby will have on people living close by.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that none of the owners or occupiers along that part of the line has petitioned against the Bill. I suspect that all of them know more about it than I do and definitely more than he does.
  Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that, on many occasions when we have debated travel, not only by train but by motor car or air, we have found that people who have become affected by the actions of an airline or by the building of a new road did not petition at the time. Perhaps they did not know the consequences of the action taken by the authority or the company concerned and did not understand the effect there would be on noise levels.
  There has been no study of the possible increase in noise resulting from the Bill. Despite the fact that not many people may have complained about the noise level, a train travelling at 75 mph rather than at 30 mph must have an effect on the people who live close by. Furthermore, at the moment only three trains a day travel on that track, and the implication is that a number of extra trains will travel along it at a much higher speed.
  Given the cost of the measure, and the works done to the line to increase the speed, I hope that British Rail has fully taken into account the alternative—I would suggest, better—uses that can be made of any money that it might decide to spend on that part of the track.
  I can give an example of why I feel that British Rail is misusing public money by improving that piece of track. I come from a part of the country, Fylde, which has been affected by the axing of the direct line from Euston to Blackpool. The train stops at Preston and people have to get on another train to travel to Blackpool. It was decided that it was not a good use of public money to have a direct service from Euston to Blackpool. It has been determined that that service is too expensive and that it is better for it to stop at Preston, where it is necessary to leave one train for a far inferior one to travel on to Blackpool. When examining the use to which public money is put, we must scrutinise carefully whether British Rail has it right.
  If the Bill makes its way to consideration in Committee, I hope that it will be examined in great detail over a fairly lengthy period. Even tonight, however, we should spend a
  744
  few minutes considering noise, the proposed extra speed and the cost to the public purse of making the proposed changes.
  I have a reasonably good track record on environmental matters. Over the past six years. I have introduced four Bills relating to such considerations. We shall have increasingly to consider the environment when we decide what sort of rail, road or other transport infrastructure we are to have. Not for the first time, I do not believe that British Rail has given close enough attention to environmental matters in producing its proposals.
  The original link between the channel tunnel and London is an example of British Rail's having failed to take into account the consequences of its suggestions. Despite extensive work—probably at great expense to the public purse—it managed to put the route straight through a new housing estate. Surely any reasonable man would consider that a most unreasonable thing to do. If the proposal had come to fruition, it would have caused considerable inconvenience, including noise, to those living on the estate. Environmental considerations should be given a full hearing when British Rail decides that it wants to proceed with new measures or schemes.
  In another context, we hear repeatedly of the problems that are caused by heavy lorries. An area of transportation with which I am relatively familiar is aviation. A proposal that there should be one extra flight into Heathrow, for instance, would lead to an insistence on a huge number of environmental assessments. Huge sums—rightly, in my view—would be spent to ascertain whether the extra flight would have an effect on the everyday lives of those living close to the airport. The same principle should apply to those who live close to a road or, in this instance, close to a railway line.
  Noise and the environment generally should receive close attention in the context of the proposals in the Bill. If such matters are not discussed reasonably fully this evening, or if they are not given a good airing in Committee, it will be necessary to return to them at a later stage. That means that British Rail may once again have to scrap its original proposals and think of a better way of achieving what it desires.
  I have great doubts whether the measure is needed. What are the real benefits of increasing the speeds of trains from 30 mph to 75 mph along a particular piece of track? If the necessary money is available for what is proposed, I think that it could be better spent elsewhere. For example, we could return to the direct service between Euston and Blackpool, which my constituents and I enjoyed until September. It is vital that the environment receives close attention when we come to consider this measure in greater detail.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Boyce: My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that there is nothing in the Bill that should divide us. That may or may not be so, but I am concerned with what is missing from the Bill. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) talked about efficiency, economy and safety, which stem from clause 1. I referred to the second edition of the "Oxford English Dictionary" before I entered the Chamber. Efficiency is described as an "operative agent" or "efficient cause". It seems that it is now used in that way only in a philosophical sense. That is fairly appropriate.

  745
  The dictionary definition of economy refers to rules that control a person's of living. That is right as well. What is safety? I found that it is the state of being safe. It is exemption from "hurt or injury" and "freedom from danger".
  We have received a supporting statement from British Rail. It states:
  "A Petition from the Glanford Borough Council complains about the purchase of land by the Board which is required in order to strengthen the embankment at Brigg carrying the railway between Gainsborough and Grimsby. The state of this embankment is such that traffic is forced to reduce speed from 75 mph to under 30 mph with the result that services take longer to reach their destination thereby causing delay and inconvenience to the Board's customers."
  I have no doubt that that is the position.
  I have a letter from Mr. Aidan Nelson, the director of the north-east region. He wrote as a result of the withdrawal of the stop at Rotherham on the route which goes through to Cleethorpes. He wrote:
  "Thank you for your recent telephone call to our Parliamentary Affairs Manager at Euston about the stopping pattern of the new Manchester-Cleethorpes service. I am replying, since Rotherham comes within my area of responsibility.
  In setting up the revised train service which has applied since 11 May, we have considered very carefully how Rotherham should be served. The introduction of a semi-fast through service between Manchester and Cleethorpes was achieved by separating the local stopping service between Sheffield and Doncaster from the longer distance trains—the previous Sheffield-Cleethorpes service having called at all stations over this section of line. As a result of this, at most times of the day the frequency of trains at Rotherham has not changed significantly, although the through facility to stations east of Doncaster is now much reduced.
  We did, in fact, give serious thought to the inclusion of a Rotherham stop in the Manchester-Cleethorpes service, but reluctantly reached the conclusion that this could not be achieved without either significant additional costs or detriment to customers elsewhere on the network."
  I suggest that the Bill offers an opportunity to put that decision right so as not to inconvenience other customers on the network as well as those of my constituents who are customers in the Rotherham area. Mr. Nelson continues:
  "Moreover, an additional six or seven minutes would be added to the journey time, which with less than 20 minutes turnround time at both Manchester and Cleethorpes does not allow sufficient time for servicing trains adequately."
  That turns on the point made by the hon. Member for Keighley. If the seven or eight minutes that could be saved is taken in conjunction with stopping time, the train could surely be allowed to stop at Rotherham and thereby service the people I represent.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman might like to point out to British Rail, in support of his argument, that many of his constituents have traditionally taken their holidays at Cleethorpes, and continue to do so. One of the original reasons for the line passing through Rotherham, particularly in the earlier part of the century, was to offer people the opportunity to get to the east coast quickly by public transport. The ho. Gentleman has the support of not only Glanford borough council but Cleethorpes borough council, because we are delighted when his constituents visit Cleethorpes. If the train were to stop in Rotherham, many of his constituents would be able to enjoy the delights of Cleethorpes in the summer and even perhaps the colder months, and we welcome people from that part of the world——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is a very long intervention.
  Mr. Boyce: I agree that it was a long intervention, but it was very relevant. It has become a tradition for my constituents to hop on a train in Rotherham and spend their holidays in Cleethorpes. Manchester also suffers under the Bill, because instead of catching a direct train passengers will have to change at Sheffield.
  One of the more comforting points in Mr. Nelson's letter says:
  "Meanwhile we firmly believe the introduction of the Manchester to Cleethorpes service does benefit Rotherham residents, in that interchange into these trains is readily available at both Meadowhall and Doncaster".
  That is no benefit to a single parent who is trying to get perhaps three or four children on to a train.
  Earlier in its letter, the board mentioned efficiency. Whose efficiency and whose safety is it talking about? What economies is it talking about—economies of time, of money or of efficiency? I have no idea, because it does not define efficiency. It certainly is not an efficient mode of travel when it comes to taking a wheelchair or perhaps a couple of upset, screaming kids off and on a train.
  Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly good point about British Rail's claim that changing trains improves efficiency. I alluded earlier to the west coast, where the same has happened. Someone travelling from London to the premier tourist resort in Europe—Blackpool—has to stop at Preston, take all the children out of the train——
  Mr. Michael Brown: And miss their connection.
  Mr. Mans: Exactly. As my hon. Friend says, it is easy to miss the connection at Preston, because passengers have to move three platforms and, as a result, they often miss their connection. The point that I am making is that it is nonsense to suggest that making passengers change trains leads to a more efficient service.
  Mr. Boyce: I agree entirely. How can it be efficient to stop and swap, rather than carry on through? I am sure that people in Blackpool will be as annoyed as people in Cleethorpes—and rightly so.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: My hon. Friend is talking about efficiency. I am sure that he will agree that these days efficiency seems to mean close it down, move it somewhere else or wind everything down. I am sure that he will agree that the word "efficiency" is misused. I know that many of my constituents have travelled on the line to Cleethorpes to have a good summer holiday—and still do so; the traditional holiday is not dead. I am sure that many of my constituents in Doncaster, North miss meeting their friends from Rotherham and joining them in their holidays at Cleethorpes.
  Mr. Boyce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the friendship that exists between our constituents.
  The British Railways Board says that it wants to run an efficient service, but on 17 June 1992 it told me that my constituents are well served because they travel to Meadowhall
  "by car and local bus as well as rail."
  My constituents either have to have a car or get all their kids on to a bus, off the bus again at the railway station

  747
  and on to train, up the stairs, down the stairs and in my lady's chamber. I say that because it appears to be directing the people of Rotherham in every which way.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same problem applies with even greater force to disabled travellers? Disabled visitors to Blackpool, South will have to change at Preston station —I have no doubt that disabled passengers will experience the same problems at Meadowhall—which increases inconvenience for them.
  Mr. Boyce: I was going to deal with that extremely important point later, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to it now. It is of the utmost importance that disabled people have access with the minimum of inconvenience.
  Meadowhall is perhaps the largest shopping complex in the country. Many people shop there—I wish it well; I have no reason to wish it otherwise—but it is served very well. It has 12,000 parking spaces. Almost every bus that leaves Sheffield heading in that general direction stops at Meadowhall. Almost every train heading in the direction of Rotherham stops at Meadowhall. Why cannot the Manchester to Cleethorpes line miss Meadowhall and stop at Rotherham? I have not received a satisfactory answer from the board on that point.
  I return to the suggested time saving of eight or nine minutes. Could not the board use that time to allow the train to stop at Rotherham Central? The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) makes a different objection from me about additional noise, but could not that disbenefit, which certainly exists, benefit somebody else, such as my constituents in Rotherham?
  Mr. Mans: I do not want to mislead the House or the hon. Gentleman. In the end, there may be a benefit to travellers if the stipulations in the Bill are enacted. I was trying to say that before we proceed with the measure, it is important to take into account the effect on the environment. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: after we have carried out the appropriate environmental impact study and all the other devices that we now associate with environmental improvement, the result might be that, on balance, it would be a good idea to go ahead, thus bringing some benefits to travellers.
  I would not want the hon. Gentleman to misinterpret the qualifications of my support for the Bill on environmental grounds. After the studies have been carried out, we might be able to proceed, but the studies have not been carried out and from the response that I received from the Minister——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an excessively long intervention.
  Mr. Boyce: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I did not intend to misquote, him. There may be a disbenefit, but could it not be turned into a benefit elsewhere?
  Mr. Nelson's letter states:
  "A key constraint in serving Rotherham is the fact that to reach Rotherham Central station, trains must pass over the Holmes chord line, which is a section of single track to the Sheffield side of the station. This currently is used by at least three trains per hour in each direction, and if we were to add to this number there is a real risk that congestion would occur, with consequent delays to all services."
  748
  I can readily accept that.
  The letter further explains that, with the good offices of the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive, Regional Railways is discussing
  "how services can be improved and developed in the years ahead—although unfortunately the PTE have intimated to us that it is unlikely in the foreseeable future they could afford conversion of the Holmes Chord to double track, which would undoubtedly do much to facilitate better services."
  However, the Bill states that almost as much money as is necessary will be forthcoming. For example, clause 9(3) states:
  "Any person who suffers loss by reason of the extinguishment under this section of any private right shall be entitled to be paid by the Board compensation, to be determined in case of dispute by the tribunal."
  That is all very well and good, but what about the people who are being disadvantaged, the general public who have no right of redress under the Bill? Almost any clause specifies the spending of money, yet there is no money to spend on the improvements to the track which are necessary to stop the inconvenience to the people of Rotherham.
  Like the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), I hope that the Bill as drafted will not receive a Second Reading. The board should make a new statement about its intentions, rather than trying to amend the Bill in an ad hoc manner. Until or unless a stop is included at Rotherham, I have no alternative but to oppose the Bill.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am worried about the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). He described the parliamentary scrutiny of the measure as purely an historic oddity. I believe that parliamentary scrutiny of all railway measures is very important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said, it gives hon. Members the opportunity to question whether British Rail management is spending taxpayers' money in the right way.
  I am worried about some aspects of the Bill. Following the comments made by hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, it seems that public money could be much better spent than is suggested by British Rail in the Bill. I agree with much of what many hon. Members have said. There is a commonality of purpose between the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) and the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on the importance of the sensible spending of public money on rail lines, especially when it involves those used by people visiting holiday resorts.
  Several hon. Members, including my Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) have spoken about the line that will affect people travelling from Yorkshire to Cleethorpes. It is clear to us all that travellers from Yorkshire may decide to go to east coast or west coast resorts. Hon. Members will agree that there has always been a tremendous amount of tourism from Rotherham and Doncaster to my constituency of Blackpool, as there has been to Cleethorpes in my hon. Friend's constituency. The issues affecting travel to our two resorts are exactly the same.
  British Rail has a particularly poor record of mismanagement of cross-country—east-west—services the length of the country. I am thinking in particular of the

  749
  closure of the Oxford-Cambridge line: the Cambridge-Bedford section was closed entirely, and another part, the Oxford-Bletchley section, was kept open only for freight. The only part left for passenger as well as for freight was the Bletchley-Bedford line. First, the link was reduced, and then it became of no use at all. That is an example of an east-west rail link which was chronically mismanaged.
  It is perhaps the worst example of a closure following the Beeching report. It later became clear that the figures had been fiddled to make the economic case that there was no reason to keep the line open. If the Bill is not scrutinised carefully, we run the risk that that will happen again.
  I am especially concerned that constituents of the hon. Members for Doncaster, North and for Rotherham who wish to go to Cleethorpes or to Blackpool should be able to do so without having to make an inconvenient change of train. They should not have to change an inconvenient change of train. They should not have to change trains at Meadowhall, which the hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned, or at Preston, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre mentioned. There is often a problem of changing platforms or of insufficient links, especially for disabled passengers. That is particularly so at Preston, where there are flights of steps.
  British Rail closed the direct link to my constituency. Incidentally, I travelled on the last through train because I wanted to see what a valuable service was being lost. I use the line most weeks, twice a week. I am very concerned that opportunities for holidaymakers to go to the biggest holiday resort in Europe—about 15 million visitor stays each year mdhas;hare being reduced.
  People who campaign for the disabled are worried that, months after the direct line was withdrawn, there were still no proper facilities at Preston for people in wheelchairs to get from the main line platform to the branch platform from which British Rail are now proposing to run the train. Not only are there insufficient links between platforms, especially for disabled people, but the trains now being run for the link from Preston to Blackpool do not have sufficient luggage-carrying capacity. They are not suitable for holidaymakers, whereas the previous through trains were mainline trains on which holidaymakers could travel easily, and on which there were facilities for wheelchair users.
  If the Bill is not carefully scrutinised, the same problem will apply for holidaymakers travelling from the constituencies of Opposition Members in South Yorkshire to Cleethorpes in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. I urge Opposition Members to continue to press the concerns that they have expressed this evening. I share those concerns. The experience of my constituents and of people visiting my constituency over the months since the direct link was lost has been that British Rail management have not been sensitive to their needs. I very much fear that the Bill will lead to the same problem.
  I have relatives in Yorkshire who want to be able to travel to Blackpool and to Cleethorpes on through trains. It is of great concern that historic tourist routes are being damaged by the insensitive British Rail management.
  There is considerable concern about some clauses. Clause 19 especially relates to the north-west, where my constituency lies. The clause makes provision for stopping up a length of road which is British Railways Board property. It is carried by accommodation bridge number 127 over the Altrincham-Chester railway near Hartford
  750
  Beach. We know from paragraph 5 of the statement on behalf of the promoters that petitions were deposited by individuals who complained about the stopping up of the bridge under clause 19. It is pointed out that the bridge
  "was originally provided as an accommodation structure for the benefit of owners of certain land on one side of the bridge. It is now gated and unused by vehicular traffic, and is seldom used by pedestrians."
  "Seldom used" does not mean that it is never used.
  The House must be extremely cautious about accepting the promises made by British Rail. So often when it has been charged as a public body to look after the rail transport needs of the country, it has taken a cavalier attitude to the interests of those who live near the railway and who wish to cross it. That point is of especial concern to me, because over many years I have seen the cavalier attitude in practice.
  Bridges have been torn down although people still want to use them, especially because of the speed at which trains now travel. With the safety aspects of crossing railways, it is a cause for great concern that British Rail proposes to get rid of a bridge that has been protected by Act of Parliament, although it cannot say that no one uses the bridge any more.
  In paragraph 5, the promoters say that those who use the bridge
  "would not appear to be among the limited number of people who are entitled to do so."
  It is of great concern that British Rail uses words such as "would not appear to be".
  One wonders to what extent British Rail has checked that point.
  British Rail says:
  "The structure of the bridge is such that it is in need of considerable repair but the costs of necessary maintenance and the consequent disruption to the railway are such that the money would be betteer used to demolish the bridge."
  "Better used to demolish"—once again, that shows the mentality so often exhibited by people in British Rail. They would rather close things than reopen them, and they would rather demolish things than ensure that a service is provided to the public. My concern is clearly shared by hon. Members of all parties.
  I am especially anxious that British Rail should be made to understand that it is its responsibility to market its services imaginatively, to provide a service that the public want to use and to ensure that as much freight as possible is transferred from road to rail. As many of the lines that are dealt with in the Bill carry freight, we need to consider the prospects for rail freight.
  It is a matter of enormous concern not only to me and to other hon. Members, but to millions of our constituents that far too much freight is carried by road, with the consequent environmental damage from heavy lorries. When we consider a British Rail private measure, we need to check carefully that the maximum possible scope is given to British Rail to ensure that the maximum amount of freight is transported by rail rather than by heavy lorries.
  Mr. John Prescott: Last week, the hon. Gentleman voted to give a Second Reading to the Railways Bill. Whenever rail policy is debated in the House, an 8 per cent. rate of return is imposed for rail freight. No other transport body has such an onerous obligation. It has led to a number of companies, which

  751
  used to transport thousands of lorryloads by rail, putting their freight on the roads. That is a result of Government policy and not of British Rail management policy.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I have a long record of speaking on railways which dates back over many years, long before I came to the House. He knows that I have consistently called for more freight to be taken off the roads and put on the railways. I have been a member of groups calling for that for many years. The debate so far has not been a matter of party political controversy. However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has raised the point, and I am grateful for the opportunity to deal with it.
  The hon. Member must be aware that his policy has been simply to ask the Government to write a blank cheque with taxpayers' money to subsidise rail freight. I call for a more level playing field between road freight and rail freight. If he asks me, for example, whether I support the greater use of environmental taxation to ensure that rail freight has the opportunity to compete, I tell him that I am very much in favour of that.
  However, the hon. Member must consider what we are discussing in the Bill. We are talking about whether British Rail, which is in charge of the management, is using its powers sensitively to encourage more freight on the railways. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the evidence given to the Select Committee on Transport by those charged with these matters at British Rail. Hon. Members of all parties asked about the downward spiral and about the way in which BR is failing to attract traffic off the roads on to the railways by its insensitive management.
  Much of the evidence to the Select Committee was given by freight operators who, if all other things had been equal, would have wished to have freight transported by rail rather than by road. Those people did not blame Government policy, which is not yet in force: they blamed insensitive railway management.
  A company in my area of Lancashire which used to use rail extensively has said that its services could not be delivered on a number of occasions. Even if a train was originally on time, the company would find that the driver was nearly at the end of his shift and that he would have to hand over to another driver. The train was consequently delayed. The company needed to deliver goods to its customers within half an hour of the order being required. The train was sometimes 24 or 36 hours late. That is not a result of Government policy; it is the responsibility of British Rail management.
  Mr. Boyce: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many air pollution problems are caused by the increasing level of road traffic. Between 1980 and 1990, emissions from road transport increased. Emissions of black smoke increased by 75 per cent., emissions of nitrogen oxide by 72 per cent., emissions of sulphur dioxide by 50 per cent. and emissions of carbon monoxide by 46 per cent. That is a direct result of the increase in road traffic.
  The increase in emissions leads to ill health among children. We are now witnessing the highest ever rate of asthma—I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins).
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his most helpful intervention. Anyone who has children, as I have, must be very concerned about the pollution of the atmosphere by gases from heavy lorries. When one is talking about rail freight——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that asthma and pollution by heavy lorries have much to do with the Bill. I realise that the Bill is drawn fairly widely, but I do not think that it goes as far as that.
  Mr. Hawkins: I was talking about the importance of getting freight back on to the railways.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main purpose of the Bill as deposited, according to the explanatory memorandum, was to construct
  "a new chord line at Shaftholme, South Yorkshire"?
  Paragraph 3 of the statement says:
  "The Board has since decided to withdraw from the Bill Works Nos. 1 and 1A",
  because the needs of British Rail's customers have changed.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause relating to Shaftholme was designed to ensure that freight was transported along that railway line? It would appear that BR is to withdraw that clause, presumably because it imagines that the freight that was once moved by rail will now be transported by road.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be the case, but it has nothing to do with asthma.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to the attention of the House.
  In relation to the intervention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, the company to which I referred explained that, on several occasions, the locomotive, which was to transport its products by rail, had to return to Wigan from Clitheroe, as it was nearly out of fuel and the closest fuelling point was near Wigan. That caused enormous delays and is yet another example of unimaginative management and poor service to customers.
  Regrettably, rail freight in Britain has been declining for many years. British industry has moved away from the older, heavy, smokestack industries, many of which were served by rail, to light manufacturing industry, which is served by road. I believe that there is no inevitability about that process. I believe that many companies would prefer to have their products transported by rail. When we examine a Bill like this, we must be aware of the need to encourage BR to provide facilities for that to happen.
  Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The irony about the Bill is that the clauses which might have achieved my hon. Friend's objective of moving freight from road onto rail—and my hon. Friend has a well-known track record for calling for freight to move from road to rail—have been removed. The Bill might have achieved what my hon. Friend called for until it was presented today. The clauses that would specifically help the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) were those that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that BR intends to remove in Committee.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am aware of the important point that my hon. Friend has raised; that is one reason why I wanted to refer to the freight issue tonight.
  The ideal market for rail freight is one in which a small number of large industrial plants distribute products to a small number of large outlets. The problem is that BR's management have adopted a frame of mind that enables them to deal only with that kind of situation. Moving coal from pit to power station is currently the bedrock of BR's trainload freight operation. I believe that BR should consider the matter more flexibly. One hopes that some of that traffic will continue. High-volume products like coal, steel and aggregates have been the key to rail freight economics for many years.
  I welcome the fact that, in recent years, BR has gradually improved its management's ability to allow operators like Foster Yeoman, which has bought its own locomotives at very high prices and which has invested heavily in rolling stock, to travel over BR metals. For more than 20 years, BR was not prepared to countenance such use over its rails. That drove a great deal of freight away from BR.
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Transport and he knows that what he has just said is wrong. Foster Yeoman wanted more powerful engines, but BR could not afford to buy them and it provided two or three under-powered engines. That was unsatisfactory. British Rail had no resources because the Government had starved it of cash. Therefore, Foster Yeoman offered to buy its own rolling stock, and it now has a much more effective service. It has achieved that because BR could not afford to provide the engines
  Mr. Hawkins: We are now considering an interpretation of history. My interpretation is different from that of the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman talks to the people who run the company that we are talking about, he will discover that their interpretation is closer to mine than to his. However, I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter with the chairman of the company.
  Market outlets for freight in Britain today are widely dispersed and require a distribution network which can move relatively small volumes quickly, flexibly and frequently. That trend has culminated in what are known as the "just-in-time" delivery systems. That market is now dominated by road haulage.
  Rail is clearly best at trunking freight over long distances. We must decide whether the Bill assists in that regard. The need for trunking rail freight over long distances has led to the development on the continent and in the United States of America of what is known as combined transport. The idea is to aggregate traffic so that goods can be trunk-hauled. In such circumstances, rail has a competitive edge. Does the Bill do anything to encourage the movement of more freight to rail by means of a policy of combined transport?
  Collection and delivery at each end can still be carried out by road. The use of containers or swap bodies helps to reduce handling costs. However, the transfer from road to rail and then back to road imposes costs and time penalties which are offset only on long hauls. Clearly, the distances involved in the United Kingdom are shorter than in the United States and Europe.
  I am extremely concerned that a Bill of this nature should ensure opportunities for passengers and for freight,
  754
  and that there is more traffic on rail. I am not satisfied that the Bill achieves that at the moment. I am also concerned about the effect on people who live near affected lines.
  The Bill affects historic lines like that in the south Wales coalfield of Mountain Ash, which was previously served by the Taff Vale railway before the grouping in 1923, and which was one of the most efficient and profitable private railways—the kind of railway to which, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East knows, I would like us to return. Clause 18(5) relates to the Great Western railway and proposes changing the Great Western Railway (General Powers) Act 1909. That important Act will be repealed in so far as it relates to the Wheal Bois crossing in Cornwall.
  Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend has just glossed over the provisions of the Bill that relate to Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who sadly cannot be with us tonight, has given me authority to raise the issue on behalf of his constituents.
  The provision in clause 18(5) does not simple amend an old Act. It proposes the stopping up of a level crossing for vehicular access and reducing it to the status of a footpath. No motor cars will have access across the railway line at Wheal Bois. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne has told he that that is an extremely irksome matter for the people who live on either side of the level crossing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) does not believe that clause 18(5) is just a little bit of tidying up by BR of an old Act of Parliament. It will cause great inconvenience to the people of Redruth.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I apologise if I gave the impression that I was seeking to gloss over the matter. I intended to make the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has just made. These matters are of enormous importance to the people who live near to the lines that are affected: that is precisely why I referred to Wheal Bois.
  British Rail frequently deals with such matters in a couple of lines in an amorphous Bill like this. It fails to address the real concerns of the people who live beside the lines. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes for raising the matter. He reinforces my earlier point that BR management does not consider such issues sensitively enough.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) referred to the matters that affect his constituency and mine. I am concerned about the Bill, because I believe that BR will not make a sensible use of taxpayers' money. It should reintroduce the direct through service to my constituency on InterCity, which was so wrongly and unjustifiably taken away last autumn, and it should reintroduce the sleeper services that are so vital to business people in my constituency, to and from Preston.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: This is a very innocuous-looking Bill, and I dare say that it does not exercise too many hon. Members, but those who have had the opportunity of listening to Back-Bench Members tonight will agree that there is far more in it than meets the eye. I, of course, have a direct constituency interest in the Bill. It impinges directly upon railway services in my

  755
  constituency, because part III relates to works near Brigg. I shall raise that matter because it causes great controversy in my constituency.
  In no sense do I make any complaint against my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who does a fine job in commending legislation. Even when it is bad legislation, my hon. Friend commends it to the House in a very agreeable way. However, I make a complaint against the promoter of the Bill, the British Railways Board. It should be pulled up by the House authorities, and certainly by the Ways and Means Office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing before the House a Bill, whose principal clauses relate to works at Shaftholme in South Yorkshire, according to the explanatory memorandum.
  On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, even though it is in his charming way, says that the British Railways Board does not intend in Committee to press on with works Nos. 1 and 1A and that it does not intend to press clause 24, which relates to land at Macclesfield which will be relieved of the burdens placed upon it by the Inclosure Act 1773, a copy of which I have obtained for ease of reference. The implication is that no hon. Member need to concern himself with anything other than what British Rail seeks to include in the Bill when it eventually comes to the House on Third Reading.
  We know the procedures of the House; the Bill will be considered in Committee. It is not for British Rail to say to the Private Bill Committee, "We do not want to press this clause, that clause, this schedule or that part of a clause." It will be making its case to members of the Private Bill Committee who are nominated by the Committee of Selection. What is in the Bill is what is of concern to us tonight, not what British Rail is saying through the sponsor of the Bill. Perhaps the Private Bill Committee will not accede to the board's request to have withdrawn from the Bill the provisions regarding Shaftholme and the new chord line. Perhaps the Committee will look at the Bill in its present form and decide whether to recommend that it should come back to the House for Third Reading.
  I address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as the Chairman of Ways and Means as well, because you have certain responsibilities for private legislation. It is extraordinary that, if the Bill is passed and it goes to the Private Bill Committee, most of the amendments that are likely to be made will be made by the promoters of the Bill, who ask to have taken out of it clauses that they have written in.
  Mr. Boyce: We are not even given an explanation of why the clauses should be taken out. Were they necessary in the first place? If they were, why, with such ease of purpose, are the promoters proposing to slide them away? They are either relevant and should be discussed in Committee or they are irrelevant. The promoters cannot have it both ways. The House needs a proper explanation before it sends to Committee such weak explanatory notes.
  Mr. Brown: I shall attempt an explanation later, because the hon. Gentleman's question is very important. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be slightly more inclined to support those clauses of the Bill or support amendments to withdraw them if an explanation had been given to him. It is a very controversial political
  756
  explanation. It is a disgrace that British Rail should bring before the House private legislation that hinges upon political developments elsewhere. British Rail has a duty, in providing railway services, when using the valuable time of the House, which has great pressure on it in respect of private legislation, to make sure that the legislation that it wants to change will endure for a long time ahead. To introduce a private Bill based upon ephemeral, temporary market opportunities is quite wrong.
  I have not forgotten the point of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce), but I have structured a number of points, and I want to start with my own constituency. The main point is that if the Bill is passed in its present form, the clauses relating to Shaftholme will still be in it before it is considered by the Private Bill Committee. Amendments, we assume, will be proposed. The amendments will be proposed, we assume, by the promoters. Members of the Private Bill Committee will listen to the promoters' arguments about why they want withdrawn clauses that they themselves deposited at the Private Bill Office only a few months ago. That is a disgraceful way to carry on.
  We shall have to consider the Bill as it is tonight. I shall ensure that my remarks relate to parts of the Bill that still exist. Quite frankly, the Bill should have been withdrawn by the promoters at the point when they were taking out clauses willy-nilly, without a by your leave, until the explanatory note was placed before the House last week. The promoters should be made to withdraw the Bill and present it exactly as they want on the statute book. That should mean that they would be obliged to redraft the Bill and come before the House with a Bill exactly as they wanted it to be in the first place.
  Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the rumpus that there would have been last year, when I was promoting the Associated British Ports legislation, if I had walked into the House with a Bill that was very contentious between the two main parties—the way in which Opposition Members responded to the Bill was entirely legitimate, and I certainly do not raise any complaint about their tactics—and indicated on Second Reading that certain clauses would not be pursued by the promoters when the Bill was considered by the Private Bill Committee? I would have been in an indefensible position. There would have been a riot on the Floor of the House.
  I would not mind betting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that your predecessor as Chairman of Ways and Means, who was exercised about that Bill for a number of reasons, would have indicated to the promoters that they could not expect time on the Floor of the House until they presented a Bill with the clauses that they actually wanted enacted.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman criticising British Rail or criticising the Chairman of Ways and Means? This procedure is not unique. What is before the House might be unusual, but it is certainly not unique. As someone who has considered private Bills in Committee, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is the situation. I should he grateful if he would clarify whom he is criticising.
  Mr. Brown: There is no way that any hon. Member, who has had the experience that I have in dealing with various Chairmen of Ways and Means since 1979, would do anything other than always accept and respect the decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Therefore,

  757
  there is a moral obligation on the promoters of the Bill to present to the Chairman of Ways and Means and then to the House a Bill in exactly the same form as they want it enacted.
  I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you understood that there was any implied criticism of your office. That was certainly not the case. You will know that I have sponsored private Bills, served on private Bill Committees and opposed private Bills so I assure you that there was no implied criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means or his office.
  I might have the good fortune to serve on the Committee that deals with this Bill. Let us suppose that the Committee decides not to give leave for the clauses that British Rail wants withdrawn from the Bill to be withdrawn. The Bill will then have to come back on Report with those clauses still in it. Even if the Committee gives leave for them to be withdrawn, I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) will automatically table amendments to retain those clauses. It is clear from the burden of his remarks that he is anxious, in so far as British Rail makes policy advances, for BR to continue developing policies that enable more freight to be put on rail and not on the roads.
  At any rate, it is likely that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South will support the retention of the clauses in the Bill. It is not given to the sponsors to come to the House tonight and to say, through my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, "We don't need to bother with the question of car parking at Macclesfield, the chord line in South Yorkshire and the works at Shaftholme because they will disappear from the Bill." It is given to the House only on Report to decide whether that will be the case.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South —because of his strong support for freight traffic—is successful in persuading the House that we should not delete the clauses and the House passes the Bill exactly as it stands today and Royal Assent is given, and then my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) decides that he wants to see the benefits that are contained in clause 24 relating to the possibility of additional car parking, what will the promoters do?
  There are many problems ahead, not the least of which is the waste of time and money. That has already been referred to tonight. I believe that the promoters are wasting the time of the House. Let me tell hon. Members what the promoters have done with regard to works 1 and 1A. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said that the clauses relating to those works would be withdrawn in Committee or on Report.
  In 1993, British Rail is hard against the coal face—or, rather, the cash face—when it comes to shortage of resources. I have with me the environmental statement, volume 1, which is full of clauses and paragraphs. I shall refer to the specific works later.
  To give the House a flavour, the volume that I have with me is just the idiot's guide. The real idiot's guide contains a few short pages summarising what those works require. I also have the technical annex volume 2 A and E which is the environmental statement relating to works 1 and 1A. It relates to a railway bridge at Shaftholme which is provided for in the Bill.
  If I had a slide projector in the Chamber, I could give the House some indication of the cost of the environmental statement. It contains photographs and maps. Goodness knows how many architects, surveyors
  758
  and British Rail administrative staff in the survey department were required to produce the document. All I can say is that there is no price on the document. On the basis that a document of this nature which is placed in the Vote Office costs about £15 simply to produce, I suspect that the cost of producing the environmental statement was horrendous.
  We have the environmental statement annex, the general statement of objectives and the idiot's guide for people like me who British Rail think will not be able to understand the documents. All those documents were produced for today's debate. Last week, I went to the Private Bill Office. I went through the Bill and asked whether there were any environmental statements. I was told that there was a large series of documents and environmental statements. The Private Bill Office did not have copies of the documents, but said that it would telephone the promoters of the Bill and get the statements for me in time for this debate.
  All those surveyors, architects, bureaucrats somewhere in York—I presume that it is the York regional office which is responsible—and the people at Euston house in London have worked on the environmental statement for the past year or so. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley then says. "We do not need to worry about the Bill tonight. It is a simple little Bill which will not be important. Half of the Bill will not apply. We will table amendments in Committee with which we hope that the House will agree." If British Rail thinks that I will agree on the nod to any withdrawal of clauses on Third Reading or on Report, it has another think coming.
  Mr. Boyce: I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell me whether the environmental impact studies refer to the whole Bill or the Bill as amended which the promoters have introduced. Will the costs to which you referred escalate as British Rail comes back with the proper environmental study for the Bill?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point. No environmental statement has been prepared for the clauses that will remain in the Bill if British Rail gets its way. The only environmental assessment relates to the clauses that the promoters intend to seek to withdraw. That is an absolute disgrace.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that British Rail knew that I had objections to the specific part of the Bill which you are talking about? British Rail never made it known to me that the environmental statement pertaining to that part of the Bill existed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that that is disgraceful?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The words "you and me" are inappropriate for the Chamber.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a delight to see him sitting in the House. As he enjoys a long a distinguished career in the House, he will find that one must learn where to look for the hidey holes with regard to private business.
  If a Bill is a private Bill, one assumes that an environmental statement will be automatically available alongside the Bill in the Vote Office. Last week, I went to the Vote Office. I asked for the Bill and a statement on it. That was provided. However, there were no estimates of the costs of the works referred to in the Bill. The House must know those costs which are available.

  759
  Other hon. Members have talked about the costs of those works. I shall deal with those costs later. One does not obtain the estimates from the Vote Office. One must walk up to the Private Bill Office which is above the Speaker's Office. Although the staff in the Private Bill Office are extremely helpful, one must specifically ask whether any environmental assessment is available. Even then, it is up to the promoters to decide whether to make the documents available and to what extent they will provide information. However, that is a well understood and accepted procedure. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) carries on learning the procedures of the House as quickly as he has done in the past few months, he will soon get to grips with that side of things.
  I make no complaint about the procedure that I have just described. My complaint is that Northern Environmental Consultants Ltd., based in Consett, has done very nicely thank you out of British Rail. Goodness knows how much time it spent on the documents. No estimate has been provided in the estimate of the cost of the works of how much the consultants received from British Rail for producing the documents. We are given no idea of the time and energy that it misspent for British Rail.
  I do not suppose for one moment that British Rail wrote to Northern Environmental Consultants—which I understand is a division of the northern division of Environmental Resources Ltd. based in Consett in county Durham—to say that it had decided not to use that company's environmental statement. I do not suppose that it told the company that it had decided to cancel the works and that it would not pay the bill. I daresay that a nice fat bill went up to the company. I do not suppose that the company did anything other than a proper job in producing the documents for British Rail.
  It is appalling that British Rail should introduce a Bill from which it intended to withdraw clauses and then present an environmental impact assessment on the clauses that would be withdrawn. It is disgraceful that the costs of assessment will be simply buried and lost.
  I shall deal with the provisions of the Bill that directly affect my constituency, before I refer to those that affect the constituency of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce). Indeed, those works also affect my constituency because we are talking about one railway line. I shall refer to the House for its consideration the specific works that relate to Brigg in schedules 1 and 2. I shall then pick up the implications of the position at Rotherham for my constituents who travel to Rotherham and the constituents of the hon. Member for Rotherham who travel to Brigg and Cleethorpes. I shall then discuss the provisions of clause 24, which affect Macclesfield.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley thought that he had satisfied me when he said that clause 24 was cancelled and that was the end of that. It is not the end of that. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield is happy with the present clause 24. It is designed to make life easier for rail travellers in Macclesfield by providing additional car parking space. The clause amends the Inclosure Act 1796. After 200 years, I daresay that there are probably good reasons for doing precisely that.
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is in order, in the interests of spinning it out, in dealing with a clause that has been withdrawn.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are dealing with the Second Reading of the Bill before us. Such issues as may arise in Committee are not for this evening's proceedings.
  Mr. Brown: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would have said last week when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State presented the Railways Bill if he had been told that clause 2 of the Bill would not apply. I wonder what he would have said if my right hon. Friend had said, "We hope that the shadow spokesman for transport will not debate clause 2 because we have said that we will not pursue it on Third Reading." The hon. Gentleman would have replied——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on that issue. I thought that we were departing to Brigg now.
  Mr. Brown: We are, indeed, departing to Brigg by a British Rail train, if they will allow us. I shall deal at an appropriate moment with clause 24, to which amendments have been proposed. I support clause 24 and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield supports it. I am certain that he would make a powerful speech inviting the House not to delete clause 24 on Report if it was proposed to do so and would vote in the Lobby accordingly. If my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley thinks that we can dispose of clause 24 like that, he has another thing coming. We cannot dispose of British Rail's refusal to amend the Inclosure Act 1796 just like that.
  The main part of the Bill that affects my constituency is schedules 1 and 2, which are referred to in clause 22. Those parts of the Bill refer to two works. The first is the strengthening of the embankment of the line between Gainsborough and Grimsby. I wish to describe that railway line to the House so that it can understand the implications of the work. I shall do so in a moment.
  The other work is the strengthening of the embankment at Mill lane of the railway line between Gainsborough and Grimsby. Everyone knows that line does not go from Gainsborough to Grimsby only. The terminus of that line is Cleethorpes. Why has the Bill used the word Grimsby rather than Cleethorpes? I shall tell the House why. One day, if British Rail gets its way, it will chop the line between Grimsby and Cleethorpes. So in all the legislation relating to my constituency British Rail never refers to the line from Manchester to Cleethorpes, Gainsborough to Cleethorpes or London to Cleethorpes. It talks about the line to Grimsby.
  Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman obviously intends to spin it out anyway, we might as well all join in. Will he confirm that under the Government's legislation—which, as far as we know, he supports—it will not be up to British Rail to chop any line? It will be up to Railtrack, which is a new creation. Poor old British Rail, or whichever franchise operator exists, will suffer under a financial regime that forces it to cut off services to places such as Cleethorpes, or other branches of the inter City services that have been lost in that area. Operators will have to do so not through any wish of theirs but as a result of the financial imperatives imposed upon them by the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman is tempted down that route, I must inform him that he cannot anticipate other legislation. He must consider the Bill before us now.
  Mr. Brown: To keep within the rules of order, I shall describe to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) the way in which the railway service currently operates through, to and from Brigg. I am prepared temporarily to confine my arguments to the railway line between Grimsby and Gainsborough.
  To set the proposals at Brigg in context, I must advise the House that a single spur railway line goes from Barnetby to Cleethorpes. One can travel by rail from Cleethorpes, through Barnetby and on to Manchester. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Rotherharn said, the train does not stop at Rotherham. One can also travel from Cleethorpes to Barnetby and on to the second spur to Newark, or to Sheffield via the Gainsborough and Grimsby line.
  British Rail says that it needs to strengthen the embankment of the line at Mill lane in Brigg and in the parish of Scawby near Brigg, because it wants to be able to run trains at 75 mph instead of 30 mph. It says that that is to enable customers to reach their destination without delay and inconvenience. It says:
  "the state of this embankment is such that traffic is forced to reduce speed from 75 mph to under 30 mph with the result that services take longer to reach their destination thereby causing delay and inconvenience to the Board's customers."
  Let us consider who the customers are on that line. About three years ago, British Rail wrote to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to tell us that it was going to take away the service and to use the provisions of the Transport Act 1985 to engage in what is called bus substitution. British Rail intended to operate a statutory bus service because it did not consider that there was a market for the rail line between Grimsby and Gainsborough. It seems extraordinary that three years later my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley should bring before the House a proposal to strengthen the embankment on a line that was going to be closed to passengers.
  How was the passenger service restored? It was because my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and I kicked up such a fuss and told my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—who was then the Minister with responsibility for railways—why we thought that it was wrong for the passenger service to be withdrawn. So it has been retained.
  For ease of reference, I have obtained from the House of Commons Library timetable 29 from British Rail's all systems timetable, which gives times for trains from Gainsborough to Grimsby. The line covers the stations of Cleethorpes, Habrough, Barnetby, Brigg and Kirton in Lindsey in my constituency and goes on to Gainsborough central.
  Three trains a day, in each direction, run on the line where the work is to be done. The first train from Brigg to Gainsborough Central—even if one is able to go at 75 mph instead of 30 mph—is at 11.32 am. I do not know what sort of person will want to travel at 75 mph instead of 30 mph to Gainsborough Central at that time of the morning. The journey takes until 11.56 am, which according to my reckoning is about 14 minutes. So the only type of person likely to use the train at that time——
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman should check his figures.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My secondary modern education has clearly come to the fore. I failed my 11-plus and I think that mathematics was one of the reasons. The journey from Brigg to Kirton takes 24 minutes. Let us suppose that I wanted to visit my goddaughter—the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle—and that I set off on the first train at 11.32 am. Unfortunately, due to the level of service that British Rail provides on the line, that is the only sort of journey that one can use it for.
  There is no prospect of anyone using the service who works normal office or industrial hours, such as a workman or skilled worker who wants to get to the steelworks in Sheffield. They would want to use it during the rush hour. There is no way that a college student in Brigg could use the service to go to Sheffield and it is no use to children going to school. Some parents in Gainsborough send their children to Brigg preparatory school—it is a private school, so many Opposition Members might say, "A good thing, too"—but they have to drive them there.
  The opportunities for passengers to save themselves a certain amount of time merely represents wasted time. Who will use the 11.32 service from Brigg to Gainsborough? What will happen if one speeds up the service, bearing in mind the fact that the trains in question will stop once between Brigg and Gainsborough?
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's constituents want to visit Doncaster to use its fine shopping facilities, particularly the market, which is open on Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. They may want to visit that market to make some fine purchases.
  Mr. Brown: That would be possible if my constituents took the train from Barnetby to Doncaster. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to travel to Doncaster on the train in question, from Brigg, on the Sheffield line, without changing at Retford. If one took the 11.32 am and changed at Retford, however, one would arrive at Doncaster at 12.9 pm. I suspect that most of my constituents would travel from Barnetby, on the Scunthorpe line, to Doncaster, which is on the Manchester line to which my hon. Friend for Blackpool, South referred earlier.
  The people who will benefit from travelling at 75 mph and who will no longer be inconvenienced by delays as a result of weaknesses in the embankment at Scawby and Brigg, at Mill lane, will be those travelling at midday, for one reason or another, from Brigg, through Kirkton in Lindsey, to Gainsborough.
  The next train from Brigg goes at 3.10 pm and the final train goes at 8.4 pm and reaches Gainsborough at 8.26 pm. For some reason, that same journey takes 22 minutes rather than 24 minutes. I am not sure how that is possible, but that is the way British Rail timetables work. It will never cease to amaze me how the final train, which makes the exact same journey, arrives two minutes earlier. Perhaps the fact that the driver is heading for home and the train is going to bed makes for a quicker journey. Three trains from Brigg to Gainsborough will benefit from the work outlined in the Bill.
  The return journey is even more quixotic. Train No. 1 sets off from Gainsborough at 9.2 am and gets to Brigg at

  763
  9.23. That train arrives just too late for those who may work in Brigg, especially if they have to get to work for 9 am. It is too late for college students attending the sixth-form college in Brigg, which now takes students from across the county boundary in Lincolnshire. I cannot imagine that there is any great demand for that train.
  Three trains travel between Brigg and Kirkton in Lindsey, at 30 mph. Under the fine proposals in the Bill, those trains will be able to travel at 75 mph. At the moment, at 30 mph, two trains from Brigg take 24 minutes and one takes 22, but the journey in the reverse direction takes just 21 minutes. Perhaps hon. Members can use their mathematical abilities to enlighten the House. Is that the reason for the variation in the timetables?
  Mr. Norris: I am following this part of my hon. Friend's speech with immense interest. I am not very good at this sort of thing, but could the reason not be that on one leg of the journey the train is going uphill, while it is going downhill on the other?
  Mr. Brown: I had not thought of that. However, two minutes are still unaccounted for—the two minutes that separate the last train home to Gainsborough from the slower train that travels from Brigg to Gainsborough at the beginning of the day. I am prepared to concede that Brigg is probably slightly higher than Gainsborough on the Ordnance Survey map; there is a small incline on the road journey.
  Mr. Boyce: The hon. Gentleman has already said that the trains concerned are travelling at 30 mph. Surely they will be travelling at 30 mph whether they are going uphill or downhill. I may be wrong; perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) will point out some anomalies in my theory. I have always assumed, however, that 30 mph is 30 mph, whether a vehicle is going uphill, downhill, sideways, horizontally or vertically.
  Mr. Brown: I am not trying to suggest that a vehicle travels faster when it is going downhill at 30 mph than when it is going uphill at that speed. Even with my limited mathematical ability, I recognise that that is not possible. Some years ago, when I was studying for O-levels, I encountered a question on logic and scientific method in the mathematics paper—O-level papers were a good deal more difficult than GCSE papers are now. The question asked whether a ton of steel was heavier than a ton of feathers. The reference by the hon. Member for Rotherham to the speed of railway trains travelling in opposite directions strikes me as rather akin to that O-level question.
  Mr. Wilson: I note that only 49 minutes remain, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has quite a few timetables to get through in that time. Will he spare a moment to tell us why he is opposed to a proposal that will make an embankment safer?
  Mr. Brown: I will do a deal with British Rail. Three years ago, British Rail made a case to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and me for taking away the passenger service, and I am prepared to acknowledge that that case may have been acceptable.
  Let us assume that only three trains a day are travelling between Brigg and Gainsborough, with a passenger service
  764
  travelling from Cleethorpes through Grimbsy, branching at Barnetby just before Brigg, down through the line to Newark in Nottinghamshire, carrying on to King's Cross —in other words, the high-speed 125 direct service, which I can still catch to my constituency, but which in some 16 weeks' time, on 12 May, my constituents will be unable to catch because the service is being withdrawn. It is rather like the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South: we too are to lose the direct high-speed 125 service.
  Mr. Wilson rose——
  Mr. Brown: I will give way in a moment, when I have developed the beginning of what the hon. Gentleman will have recognised is a most important argument for allowing the embankment at Brigg to continue in its present state. I am not suggesting for a moment that the line should be operated unless it is safe; but it is safe at 30 mph, whereas it is not safe at 75 mph unless the works are done.
  I understand that the total cost of these works will be more than £2 million. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will be able to tell me the precise cost of the two embankment improvements, which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North says need carrying out for safety reasons. Of course, as long as three passenger services a day run over these embankments I do not want any risk to be taken with human life—but that is not what would happen if these works were not undertaken. The services would merely continue exactly as they are, with the current speed restrictions.
  Mr. Wilson: We are gradually getting somewhere, albeit at 30 mph or less. We seem to have established that this jolly jape has nothing to do with the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has been adducing but more to do with a complaint—perhaps legitimate—about the withdrawal of an adjacent InterCity service. Given that fact, and given the hon. Gentleman's protestations of concern for his constituents, does he think that good enough reason to obstruct other measures in the Bill that are for the benefit of other hon. Members' constituents' safety?
  Mr. Brown: The main safety provision—the strengthening works—relate to my constituency. I am not obstructing anything. The Order Paper tells me that at 10 pm the House can come to a conclusion on this matter. I am not aware that any other hon. Member wants to address the House. I would never dream of trying to prevent other hon. Members from speaking either for or against the Bill——
  Mr. Waller: I am grateful for that assurance. My hon. Friend has raised a number of legitimate points which deserve an answer. He has said that he would not obstruct anyone who sought to intervene. I am sure that he would agree that it would help the House if answers could be given it. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak again, to answer the points that my hon. Friend has raised. Bearing in mind his assurance, I should be grateful if he allowed me to do that in, say, 20 minutes' time.
  Mr. Brown: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend can catch my eye and intervene with his answers to each question that I pose. I seem to recall that at the beginning of the debate, when I sought to intervene in my

  765
  hon. Friend's speech to ask him to consider the legitimate questions posed by the people of Brigg, he was unwilling to give way. He gave way reluctantly on a second occasion.
  We have massess of time in the House; there is no question of obstruction. This is a three-hour debate. That is a perfectly reasonable length of time for anyone to say what he wants to. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North wants to go home to bed early. He can do so—the debate will conclude at 10 pm, as it must under the rules of the House. I assure him that this is no jolly jape. I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my constituents.
  It is certainly no jolly jape attempting to make a rail journey on the line between Cleethorpes and Manchester, via the Scunthorpe-Doncaster line or via the Gainsborough-Kirton in Lindsey line—the subject of all this expenditure—or via the line to Newark down to King's Cross. I have been doing the journey for 17 years, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to try doing it for one week he will find that it is no jolly jape.
  I assure the House that I have serious, legitimate concerns about the works to be engaged in by British Rail. The high-speed 125 service was introduced in a blaze of glory in 1982, when British Rail took away four direct trains from Cleethorpes to London and introduced in their stead a single high-speed rail service. It invited me to ride shotgun with the driver, and all sorts of fancy receptions were held. Yet the service is to go now, because BR says that my constituents are not paying enough in fares to make the service pay.
  Tonight British Rail proposes massive expenditure on an embankment to carry three trains—at times when people cannot possibly use the service to get to work, college or school—to run in each direction between Brigg and Gainsborough. That is not a jolly jape; it is a serious constituency concern.
  I hope that, if my constituents have the good fortune to hear these exchanges tonight on their local radio or in the television programmes that broadcast our proceedings, they will understand that the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is some kind of joke. I assure him that it is not. This is a crucial policy discussion on British Rail's expenditure and appropriation, or rather misappropriation—that is the joke, although I do not think that we should laugh at it. It is a joke to go to a firm of environmental consultants and to produce an environmental assessment of clauses that the House will be invited to withdraw on Report and Third Reading.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman speaks about his constituents knowing what is going on. I wish that his constituents could be supplied with a video of this debate so that they could see the hon. Gentleman in full and glorious flight. He spoke about going home to bed. I shall not be going home to bed anyway. Like most hon. Members, I do not like to see stunts, which is what the hon. Gentleman is performing. The hon. Gentleman seems to confirm that by saying that he is not arguing against the service but is using the Bill and the issue within it coincidentally to air his doubtless legitimate grievance about the withdrawal of InterCity services.
  The hon. Gentleman is complaining in dramatic terms and at inordinate length about the withdrawal of the InterCity service to Cleethorpes. He had better prepare himself for a few more one or two-hour stunts, because the logic of his Government's legislation is that many more
  766
  InterCity services will be withdrawn. British Rail cannot be blamed for that. It is the fault of the Government who have imposed financial objectives on BR which require these closures, and privatisation will ensure many more withdrawals of direct InterCity services. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape from that logic and no amount of histrionics will get him off that hook.
  Mr. Brown: That is simply not the case and it is not true. Under the present structure it is the nationalised British Rail which is withdrawing services and misappropriating expenditure in my constituency. Thank goodness I can look to the Government's Bill to franchise services and to come to the aid of my constituents. [Interruption.] British Rail has taken decisions about services in my constituency on the basis of its current standing as a nationalised corporation. British Rail gave notice in 1992, nearly a year ago, that it proposed to withdraw services from Cleethorpes to London and at that time there was no Government legislation on the table. The Government's current Bill will give my constituents opportunities and challenges which British Rail seems intent upon taking away. I look forward with enthusiasm to further debate on the legislation that was introduced to the House last week.
  Mr. Wilson: I should like to clarify the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he think that a private franchisee will reintroduce an InterCity service from London to Cleethorpes? Would a private franchisee have been more likely to introduce such a service in the first place? Many InterCity services have been pruned. Night sleeper services in some areas and some direct services from Scotland have been lost, but I at least have the sense and consistency to realise that InterCity has to do that to meet financial objectives. Neither the hon. Gentleman, who gets into an enormous lather of outrage about the loss of the direct service from London to Cleethorpes, nor any of his hon. Friends should be under any misapprehension. Enfranchisement or privatisation—call it what we will—will lead to the loss of many more direct InterCity services. If all Conservative Members feel as nervous about it as the hon. Gentleman does, we shall have many similar entertainments in the months ahead from Tory Back Benchers.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is plain wrong, but he has asked me a specific question, which I shall answer. Provided that British Rail does not operate a scorched earth policy and does not allow a gap in the timetable so that ther is no going concern between the end of the service in May and the enactment of the Bill, there is hope for the service. Along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I have proposed to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport and to British Rail that British Rail gives an undertaking that it will retain in the timetable the services that are used by the people of Brigg far more than the services affected by the Bill. The people of Brigg are far more likely to use the railway station at Barnetby, two and a half miles to the east of Brigg, than they are to use the railway station at Brigg, because then, to get to Gainsborough, they have to go over the embankments on a delightful journey in the middle of the day, involving two or three trains.
  Therefore, if British Rail undertakes to continue the direct service from Cleethorpes through Barnetby and down to Newark and on to King's Cross, in both directions, until the day that the Railways Bill receives

  767
  Royal Assent, a franchise-run direct service between Cleethorpes and London could be a serious runner. However, I am prepared to concede that if British Rail operates a scorched earth policy and says, "We don't want to operate a direct service from Cleethorpes to London. Let's get it out of the railway timetable this May. Let's make sure that people have got used to making some other arrangements," there will be problems. People may become used to driving their cars to Doncaster or Newark to get the main line trains direct from those stations or have got into the habit of not using public transport for the journey to Cleethorpes from Brigg, Barnetby or Newark. Then it would be much more difficult for a franchise service to be successful.
  Let me return to the Bill and the works in schedule 1. The main point is that money is being wasted by strengthening the embankment for a passenger service that operates six vehicles a day. The trains that operate are the new class 138—I think that that is right, but there is probably greater expertise among Opposition Members on that. I know that the 158 is the two-car service that operates between Cleethorpes and Manchester Piccadilly, and does not stop at Rotherham. If my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committe on Transport were here, he could have put us all in our place by giving us the correct numbers.
  Mr. Boyce: I hope that it is in order to ask the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), through the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), when he comes to answer the financial questions put by the hon. Gentleman, to answer my question about the time that will be made up if the proposals go ahead and the trains through the link are allowed to travel at 75 mph rather than 30 mph. Earlier, the hon. Member for Keighley implied that he would answer the question and I am anxious that he does so.
  Mr. Waller rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.
  Mr. Brown: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has heard the hon. Gentleman's point and, should there be an appropriate point in my remarks that would allow him to deal with it, I should be willing to give way to my hon. Friend, who suddenly developed a desire to address the House on a second occasion even though he was a little nervous about giving way to me when he was speaking.
  Mr. Peter Butler: I congratulate my hon. Friend on completing the first hour of his address to the House. During that period, he could have travelled approximately 30 miles on a British Rail train. Might that not have been a better way to spend his time?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. All too often, I spend an hour standing at Newark railway station, catching a cold or flu, becoming accustomed to what life will be like for my constituents at Brigg and for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, the Under-Secretary of State for Technology. In 16 weeks' time we
  768
  shall have to tolerate a change at Newark on our journey through to Grimsby and Cleethorpes. Some of my hon. Friends have found the past hour or so an endurance, but I shall have to spend even more time waiting for connecting trains at Newark and Doncaster. We know that London trains have to be only 10 minutes late before a local train is sent on.
  My hon. Friend feels that it is possible to travel 30 miles in an hour with British Rail, but my experience is that it is sometimes necessary to stand on a station for a long time. If anyone wishes to travel from London to Cleethorpes, he or she will have to do just that at Newark, and for hours on end. I have much in mind the way in which connections are sometimes timetabled. Those of my hon. Friends who have found the past hour or so, which I have spent drawing attention to the problems of railway travellers, an endurance test will bear in mind, I hope, that that is what life will be like for my constituents later this year at both Newark and Doncaster when they wait for connecting trains on cold and draughty platforms for hours on end.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman's analogy is false. Most travellers waiting on a station for an hour would love to be entertained for that period by a clown.
  Mr. Brown: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman, who has not been a Member of this place for as long as myself, does not appreciate that some of us take private Bills extremely seriously. If I were to entertain my constituents on a cold and draughty platform at Newark or Doncaster, they would much rather be on a train—however good the entertainment—making their journey home. They would much prefer not to be on the platform at Newark being entertained by me or anyone else. They would much prefer to sit in a train travelling direct from King's Cross to Cleethorpes. The hon. Gentleman might want to make cheap and stupid points, but he should bear in mind the inconvenience that some of my constituents will have to tolerate.
  As it is constructed, the Bill appears to be a waste of British Rail's valuable resources. How does British Rail have the brass-necked cheek to tell my constituents that they cannot have a service of any sort between Cleethorpes and King's Cross without changing trains? Yet it is only too anxious to improve a three-train-in-each-direction service on the line between Brigg and Gainsborough and onward to Sheffield. That demonstrates a wrong sense of priorities. I am angry that British Rail has decided to adopt that approach to "improve" railway services in my constituency. The only railway service that needs improvement is the one that is being threatened with closure. It is a service which should be retained.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said earlier, on behalf of the Opposition, that British Rail had to withdraw services such as those to Cleethorpes and Blackpool because of the imposition of Government-imposed financial criteria. That is not why Cleethorpes is being disadvantaged, even though British Rail might say otherwise. I remember the assurances that were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and myself about five years ago about the long-term future of the service. I remember also writing to British Rail. I recall a private Bill that was considered in 1988. During the passage of that Bill I happened to write to British Rail—this was by coincidence—about the future of certain railway stations in my constituency.

  769
  I asked British Rail to commit itself to maintaining services between Cleethorpes and London. It stated in a letter that there was no threat to rail services, but my suspicious mind worked out that, one day, the high-speed 125 direct service would be taken away. In 1988, when there was no talk of privatisation, I worked out that one day BR would want to take away the men who sell tickets at railway stations to reduce manning. I received these letters from British Rail a week before the Bill was due to be given a Second Reading. It is strange that BR is prepared to give certain assurances to hon. Members, and I foolishly played no part in the private Bill that the House was then considering. This time, because of my experience, I do not believe the assurances that British Rail has given me.
  BR retimed the Cleethorpes to London service. Previously I could catch a train from the House to my constituency, and Ministers frequently visited my constituency. A couple of years ago, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was a transport Minister with responsibilities for British Rail. One Friday evening, he caught the train from King's Cross to Barnetby. He left the House of Commons at about 4.45 pm, caught the 5.15 pm train and two and a quarter hours later he arrived at Barnetby. Within 10 minutes he was at his official engagement in my constituency. A year before British Rail announced that it would withdraw the direct service, it retimed the service so that it left London at 5.50 pm, arriving at Barnetby at 8.20 pm. It now arrives in Cleethorpes at 8.50 pm.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North says that British Rail is under an obligation from the Government to operate InterCity services in such a way that they are not profitable. British Rail has made the service unprofitable. People are less inclined to use the service in the evening because it now arrives about 40 minutes later than it did previously. People use the train that departs at 4.30 pm and tolerate changing at Newark because they get home earlier. British Rail has deliberately sabotaged the service by making it depart from London 40 minutes later, thereby making it very late when it gets to Barnetby, Grimsby and Cleethorpes. It has deliberately driven trade off the train.
  If British Rail is saying that fewer people are using the train from Cleethorpes to Newark than two or three years ago, I am prepared to acknowledge that. After all, it is said that statistics never lie. I shall tell the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North why people are less inclined to use the direct service, and it it has nothing to do with the Railways Bill but more to do with BR's pricing policy.
  British Rail used to advertise aggressively the super-saver service. In those days, the cost down to London was about £38. The super-saver ticket was available for second class passengers on the train from Barnetby to King's Cross until the year before last. British Rail then decided that no passenger could use the direct service from Barnetby to King's Cross unless he caught a traing after 9 am using the saver ticket. That meant that a large eight-coach train with first and second-class compartments and a breakfast car could not be used by some passengers, perhaps retired or less well-off people who could not afford to throw an extra £6 at British Rail. They had to wait until 9 am to catch the Regional Railways train to Newark, stand on a draughty platform and then get the main line train to London.
  Mr. Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman starts on another circuit, perhaps I can pin him down. He has obviously persuaded himself—or purports to have persuaded himself—that there has been a dark conspiracy against Cleethorpes within the upper confines of British Rail. He is clearly a little parochial in these matters, but perhaps he can elevate his sights. Is it likely that British Rail has set out to deprive Cleethorpes of its InterCity service? if not, perhaps he should consider which lnterCity services should be cut so that Government targets can be met.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned 1988. Surely, given his encyclopaedic knowledge of these issues, he knows that the financial objectives to which InterCity and the rest of British Rail have had to work were laid down in December 1989 by Cecil Parkinson. Since then, InterCity—uniquely, certainly in Europe, and probably in the world—has been a profitable railway, albeit only marginally profitable. However, as there are some very profitable sectors within InterCity, which services does he suggest should be cut to meet the targets? Does he not understand that it is not a matter of Cleethorpes against the world but of Government policy?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That was a somewhat lengthy intervention.
  Mr. Wilson: I was trying to get it in proportion to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not follow that precept.
  Mr. Wilson: Can the hon. Gentleman say which sectors of InterCity should be cut and why he supports the financial objectives for InterCity which will clearly have the effect that he has rather unconvincingly created about tonight?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman complained and seemed to suggest that I was detaining the House unduly. I have many notes to read out and I wish to refer to Redruth and to Macclesfied. I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as he is responsible for prolonging my short speech. I have many issues to raise with the promoters of the Bill, which are directly relevant to the clauses affecting Macclesfied and Redruth. I have wanted to refer to them for some time, but the hon. Gentleman keeps detaining me by raising interesting points to which I feel it is my duty to respond. The House will know that I am always generous in giving way to interventions from Opposition Members and that I do my utmost to answer them. I am certainly prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman.
  I see no reason for British Rail to have to make cuts to live up to the objectives that the Government have placed on it. If British Rail had had the imaginative management of British Airways in the past 10 years, it would have no difficulty in being able to provide, with its InterCity services, trains at times the customer wants to travel while still meeting the Government's financial objectives.
  British Rail chooses to run trains at times when people do not want to travel and chooses to delay the departure of the King's Cross to Cleethorpes train. That train was used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) until he became a Minister. He went on to become an even bigger Minister and then Prime Minister.

  771
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North should study the Order Paper for tomorrow. He will see that, during Prime Minister's Question Time, we are to discuss railway services between Cleethorpes and London, because I am to invite the Prime Minister to make an official visit to Cleethorpes by train. Tomorrow afternoon, the House and the nation, through television broadcasting, will be able to relate the proceedings on the Bill to Government policy. Between 3.15 and 3.30 pm tomorrow, the House will focus its attention on these railway services.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North will not shout out that it is some kind of jolly jape when I ask my right hon. Friend to make a comment——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let tomorrow take care of itself.
  Mr. Brown: Although that great day is only two and a quarter hours away, I leave that line of argument.
  The main point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is that British Rail is unable to provide certain services to Cleethorpes. He asks me to accept that there is no conspiracy in British Rail against Cleethorpes. I should like to think that there is not, but I think of the way in which British Rail gave me assurances about the manning of railway stations in the Brigg area, in the Barnetby area and in the Habrough area of my constituency some years ago. BR gave me assurances about the long-term future of the high-speed 125 train from Cleethorpes to King's Cross some years ago.
  I suddenly see that the Bill refers not to the Cleethorpes-Gainsborough line, but to the GrimsbyGainsborough line. Stations such as Barnetby were denounced six months ago. The Cleethorpes 125 direct service has been withdrawn. My suspicious mind wonders whether somebody up there in British Rail has got it in for Cleethorpes.
  Mr. Boyce: I have no way of knowing whether Cleethorpes has been disadvantaged deliberately. I have my own theories about what is going on. The reason may be the vociferous way in which the hon. Gentleman has sought to protect Cleethorpes. It may be because I am a new Member of Parliament that British Rail has sought to take advantage of Rotherham. I have no way of knowing, but my suspicious mind tells me that that is the case. As I am a new Member and not very used to procedure, British Rail has sought to ride roughshod over the people of Rotherham. British Rail may have made the people of Cleethorpes suffer because of the vigorous intervention of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does himself a grave disservice. Anyone listening to him would not believe that he had been a Member of Parliament for only nine months. I honestly felt that I was listening to someone who had been a Member of Parliament for at least nine years. He eloquently convinced me of the disadvantageous way in which the Bill will affect the people of Rotherham.
  I knew the hon. Gentleman's predecessor very well because we used to cross swords on steel issues when I represented the constituency of Brigg and Scunthorpe before the boundaries were altered in 1983. I knew Mr. Stan Crowther extremely well——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the rails.
  Mr. Brown: Hon. Members keep sending me down branch lines. The hon. Member for Rotherham described himself as an inexperienced Member of Parliament. He is a very experienced Member of Parliament and he has quickly learnt to be suspicious of British Rail in the provision of railway services between east and west.
  I shall now link the comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham with the challenge of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North. I believe that British Rail simply wants to run InterCity trains in straight lines from London to Edinburgh, from London to Glasgow and perhaps from London to Bristol and Swansea. Its cross-country service provision has always been poor.
  I am prepared to concede that there is, however, one bright spot—that is, when it works, when the trains turn up and when British Rail does not send old trains which break down. The Manchester to Cleethorpes service is pretty good and it has modern rolling stock. As the hon. Member for Rotherham said, the only thing missing is for the service to stop at a town the size of Rotherham. Under the terms of the Bill, that will not happen.
  I believe that it is much more convenient for British Rail to run high-speed, electrified railway trains. British Rail does not want to run diesel-electrics. We must recognise that the service from Cleethorpes to Newark is not electrified. The point that is relevant to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is that the Government have given British Rail hundreds of millions of pounds to provide an electrified service from London to Edinburgh.
  When the electrification programme was taking place in 1988, I wondered what would happen when the train from King's Cross reached Newark and the thing—I have forgotten what it is called—that extends from the engine to the electrified wire to draw the power——
  Mr. Norris: The pantograph.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. I would expect him to know what it is called.
  The pantograph is of use only on an electrified service. There is no electrification proposed between Newark and Cleethorpes and between Cleethorpes and Manchester. Therefore, we depend upon diesel electric trains.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If, as my hon. Friend says, there is such a need for the services to Cleethorpes, are not the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport just what my hon. Friend needs? If there is a need for those services, a franchiser will be prepared to bid for the services and my hon. Friend will then get the service that he wants.
  Mr. Brown: That is the point that I made a few moments ago. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on.
  However, we must obtain those franchises services when services continue to exist as going concerns. When the new timetables are introduced in May, the service is to be withdrawn from Cleethorpes. The Railways Bill, which received its Second Reading last week, probably will not

  773
  reach the statute book until July or perhaps not until October or November. There will be an interregnum, during which there will be no direct service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury would surely agree that if a business is sold as a going concern, it will benefit from the new arrangements to improve that going concern. However, if a business, operation or railway service is shut down and one expects the private sector to crank it up once more, albeit under the new facilities that I welcome in the Railways Bill, that service is more likely to be a success if a new franchised service takes over 24 hours after British Rail relinquishes control and if BR does not pursue its scorched earth policy.
  I object to the fact that if BR does not want to provide the service and decides to close it in May, and the new legislation does not reach the statute book until the end of the year, by that time BR will have driven people off the railways to Cleethorpes altogether and into their cars to drive to Newark and Doncaster. That is why it is so wrong for British Rail to claim that it wants to save money on that service when it is prepared to waste money.
  Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was not present earlier. I shall not go over old ground, but I shall give my hon. Friend an idea of how British Rail has been wasting money. I have with me the environmental assessment of the clauses relating to Shaftholme and the chord line in works Nos. 1 and 1A, which was produced by a firm of consultants for British Rail. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley told the House that those clauses will not be proceeded with. British Rail is prepared to waste money to pay private sector consultants to produce a report on clauses that will not be enacted, yet it is not prepared to provide for my constituents a service from Cleethorpes to London. That is the waste of money in the Bill.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of my hon. Friend's concise, short speech, but has he tried to suggest to British Rail that it might operate the train to Cleethorpes at peak hours only?
  Mr. Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will do me the honour of speaking in my constituency, and I hope also that he will use the railways service between now and May to do so. There is but one train a day from Cleethorpes to London in the morning and one train from London to Cleethorpes in the evening. When I became a Member of Parliament 14 years ago there were four trains in each direction. We now have only one train at peak times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] As my hon. Friends say, that is disgraceful. The situation has deteriorated in that time, and that is why I am so suspicious of British Rail's future intentions.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has certainly brightened up the evening. I am sure that he will go down as the man who isolated Cleethorpes within the space of three general elections. However, for the hon. Gentleman it is a serious point. He will have investigated the differential cost of InterCity services operating on electrified lines and non-electrified lines. In the light of that information, he will be able to inform not only his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) but many other hon. Members about the likelihood of InterCity services continuing after being franchised on non-electrified lines.
  774
  Is not the hon. Gentleman's message that, under any auspices, if InterCity is to be a profitable railway, or if bits thereof are to be profitable, there will be no InterCity services operating on non-electrified lines? That carries a very serious message not only for some of my hon. Friends north of Edinburgh, for instance, but for many Conservative Members, as they are about to find out during the passage of the Railways Bill.
  Mr. Brown: I certainly had my suspicions back in 1988 that British Rail had no wish to have high-speed 125 trains —that is, the diesel electric powered trains that do not require overhead cables—going anywhere near King's Cross. I have heard from railway experts in my constituency, such as the Railway Development Society based in Cleethorpes, that British Rail wants to do everything that it can to run only electrified trains into King's Cross. That certainly carries the implications that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North mentioned. Any high-speed 125 train that goes to King's Cross is a vulnerable service. The service from Hull to King's Cross is certainly vulnerable. Concern has been expressed about the service in Goole, which is operated from Hull to King's Cross.
  I am only just coming to my concluding remarks with regard to the provisions of the Bill concerning Brigg. I now turn to the provisions——
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: rose in his place and claimed to move That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 51.

  Division No. 143]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Arbuthnot, James

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

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

  Ashby, David

  Legg, Barry

  Bates, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lightbown, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Maclean, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Merchant, Piers

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Carttiss, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Norris, Steve

  Congdon, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Richards, Rod

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Riddick, Graham

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Forth, Eric

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Freeman, Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Thomason, Roy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  775

  Waller, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Yeo, Tim

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilson, Brian

  Mr. Michael Trend and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Mahon, Alice

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Meale, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Michael, Alun

  Day, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dixon, Don

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Mullin, Chris

  Dover, Den

  O'Hara, Edward

  Eastham, Ken

  Parry, Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  Pickthall, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Pike, Peter L.

  Flynn, Paul

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Hall, Mike

  Spellar, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stevenson, George

  Heppell, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Hood, Jimmy

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Illsley, Eric

  Watson, Mike

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Whittingdale, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Terry

  Mr. Jimmy Boyce and

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Mr. Michael Brown.

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Whereupon MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for closure or for proposal of Question).
  It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 11 February

Industrial Training Levy
10.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
The proposals—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask for considerably more silence?
Mr. McLoughlin: The proposals before the House seek the authority for the construction and engineering construction industry training boards to impose a levy on the employers in their industries, to finance the running costs of the boards and to fund their range of training initiatives, including grants schemes. Provision for that is contained in the Industrial Training Act 1982 and the orders before the House would give effect to proposals submitted by the two boards.
Both proposals include provision to raise a levy in excess of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires that in such cases the propsals must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. In each case, the proposals are the same as those approved by the House last year. They are based on employers, payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour. Both have special provision for small firms.
For the CITB, the rates are 0·25 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of payments made by employers to labour-only sub-contractors. Employers with a liability of £45,000 or less will be exempt. The ECITB treats its head offices and construction sites as separate establishments and applies different levy rates, which reflect the costs of training particular workers. For head offices, the rates are 0·4 per cent. of payroll and 0·5 per cent. of payments to labour-only sub-contractors. Firms employing 40 or fewer employees are exempt. The rates for sites are 1·5 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of labour-only payments with exemption for employers with a liability of £75,000 or less. In each case the proposals have the support of the employers in the industry, as required by the Industrial Training Act, and have the full support of the respective boards.
The House will know that the CITB and the ECITB are the only two remaining statutory industry training boards. Most other sectors of industry are covered by independent arrangements. The Government believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, independent employerled arrangements are the most effective. The House will be aware that the CITB is currently under review. This has, I know, given rise to much speculation and concern.
I hope that the House will be reassured when I say that, as in 1990, we have consulted widely with the industry about the effectiveness of the board and its current funding arrangements. I am not yet able to make a statement to the House about the board's future, but I can say that the results of that consultation will be extremely important in informing our decision. Although there is still some work to be done, I hope to make an announcement shortly. In

777
the meantime though, the operations of both the boards continue as normal. I believe that it is right for 1993 that the House should agree to approve the draft orders before it, and I commend them to the House.
10.13 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Given the crisis into which the Government and their policies have plunged the construction industry and training within it, it is staggering that the Minister should make such a brief speech.
I remind the Minister of the debate that he opened a little more than a year ago on a similar order for the construction industry training board, when the Prime Minister's meeting with a delegation from the industry in October 1991 was described. The delegation stressed the depressed state of the construction industry to the Prime Minister, who disagreed with the delegation's gloomy forecast of when recovery in construction would begin and said that he expected the industry to emerge from recession in the middle of 1992. Many people are still awaiting that recovery, including the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who has a considerable interest because redundancies at the CITB have affected his constituents. Those redundancies have been made precisely because of the recession in the construction industry and the incompetence of the Government.
I should put the record straight: it was not the present Minister who opened the debate on the CITB in December 1991, but the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who said then that much progress had been made by the CITB. In a sense, he paid tribute to the way in which the board had restructured its operations and he said that new measures on training had been introduced to counter the effects of the recession. Nothing could have been further from the truth, because in the past 12 months training in construction has fallen behind the provisions made in previous years—in common with training in many other areas of economic activity.
The Minister has commented on the Government's view of voluntarism, but it is important to note that Sir Brian Wolfson, chairman of the national training task force, made it clear recently, to the great embarrassment of the Secretary of State and her Ministers, that he now supports levies for all industry, not simply for the construction industry, which has its own particular problems. He believes that those levies are necessary because voluntarism has been such an abysmal failure where it has been adopted.
He also made an outspoken attack on the Goverment's underfunding of the training and enterprise council system. That was hardly surprising when we note that between 1989 and 1990, the beginning of the present recession, until 1995–96—which is as far as Government projections go—there will have been a cut of 32 per cent. in real terms in Government funding for training. That reduction will be made before the present round of public expenditure cuts are imposed. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House as to whether more cuts will be made as a result, or can he guarantee that the training budget will be maintained at its present level?
My guess is that the Minister will not be able to tell us one way or another, because the last people to be consulted on the training budget will be Ministers at the Department of Employment, who have failed abysmally to protect that
778
budget. [Interruption.] The Whip may groan, and I should be more than happy for him to break our conventions and debate this matter with me: he is part of the incompetence surrounding those on the Treasury Bench and it is right for him to take some interest in what is going on.
The construction and engineering industries are virtually unanimous in their opposition to voluntarism. In common with Sir Brian, they do not believe that it represents a useful way forward. Many people now believe that it is time for the reviews of the CITB to be put to bed. It is disgraceful that the Minister should come to the House tonight and be unable to tell us where that review stands.
The present remit of the CITB will expire in April this year and if I were the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, I should be extremely concerned about the future of my constituents who work for it. I know from that hon. Gentleman's previous endeavours on behalf of his constituents that he is not afraid to criticise the Government for their incompetence regarding the board's operation and their general lack of enthusiasm for what it tries to do.
The Minister should also note that an announcement from his Department stated that a government decision on the future of the CITB would be made "early next year". That was the comment of Mr. Jim Wiltshire, head of the Department of Employment's training division. He went on to say that, in that context, "early next year" meant January, rather than later in the year. I do not consider a date in February consistent with that. When exactly will the Minister allow the training board to know where its future lies?
It is not the board's apologists who are frustrated: the Building Employers Confederation, for instance, has said:
"frequent reviews have a destabilising effect on training and staff morale."
The federation is right. The message is coming through loud and clear from the whole construction training side: morale is indeed at a low ebb, because people are not certain of their future. We need an industrial training board that is committed to getting the best out of the industry. Given the absence of a partner in government to help to obtain that best, the current frustration is understandable.
I should place on record the fact that, although I have prayed in aid of the Building Employers Confederation, it has been critical of some aspects of the CITB. It is certain, however, that a statutory training board and a levy are needed. The confederation's view is now shared by many other organisations. The plant hire firms, whose support for the CITB has seemed a little suspect in the past, recently stated that, if the present levy ended, there would be
"a rapid collapse in training, with less responsible companies poaching trained operatives off those who have invested in training."
Of course, the whole rationale for a levy system—not just in construction, but across the board—is the fact that poaching is what good trainers fear that bad trainers do. No Minister has been able to provide an answer for that.
It is time that the Government came clean. Do they intend to abolish the levy system and the board in what might be called an ideological spasm? The Department has failed to come up with its own ideological offering on the alter of failing Thatcherism. A reluctant Secretary of State for Transport has introduced a Bill for the ludicrous

779
privatisation of British Rail, for a number of silly reasons. Perhaps the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment wants to go down in a blaze of glory as the man who finally got rid of the training boards.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Perhaps the building will collapse on top of him.
Mr. Lloyd: Indeed, we do not know what will happen to him as he leaves the building.
Both training and construction itself are now in crisis. Between 1988 and last year, the number of housing starts fell by 36 per cent., and output generally fell by 12 per cent. It should come as no surprise to learn that, over the same period. there was a massive reduction in the number of people employed in the construction industry. Even in the one year between June 1991 and June 1992, there was a 12 per cent. cut in the number of employees in the industry, and a 10 per cent. cut in the number of self-employed. That amounts to a staggering total of 174,000 job losses in that industry in a single year.
The Minister and his colleagues should be ashamed of themselves for allowing that to happen at a time when millions are out of work. Many of the people between 16 and 24 who are currently unemployed—nearly a million —are desperate to obtain employment training in the construction industry; there is a desperate shortage of skilled operatives in the industry, and a desperate shortage of decent quality housing stock and other buildings. For economic, social and human reasons—even to get the Government off the political hook on which they have hung themselves—we ought to train people in construction. Instead, the Government's inaction has led to the rundown of the industry and the rundown of training. That is the charge to which the Minister must respond at some point.
In 1989, the last peak for the construction industry, there were some 81,000 apprentices. By 1992, the number had fallen to 59,000. That is a dramatic reduction. We know that in 1990–91 the CITB was supporting 14,000 construction trainees. By 1991–2, that had dropped to 10,500. Last year, the number was down to 8,500. So even the Government's own schemes have fallen off dramatically.
In the Government's much vaunted youth training scheme, the claims for which are that the youth guarantee works—the Minister and I know that it does not—were it not for the 2,000 places that the CITB is propping up, the Government would look even more embarrassed. Twelve thousand organisations disappeared from the CITB register in one year alone—12,000 building organisations went to the wall because of the crass incompetence and stupidity of the Chancellor and the Conservative Members who support him.
The construction industry has collapsed, and so has training. The Government have been criticised by many of the most senior and eloquent people in the industry. In recent months they have been severely criticised by the big operators which have contracted with the training and enterprise councils to organise adult training: Wimpey, John Mowlem, Henry Boot and Jarvis specialise in the retraining of adults but fear that the cash will not be
780
forthcoming from TECs to continue with this type of training. The chief executive of the east London TEC, Ian MacKinnon, has said:
"Whether we can continue to justify current levels of construction training we shall just have to wait and see. We must respond to market conditions."
He is not talking about whether we need skilled operatives; he is talking about whether there will be enough money in the TEC budgets to allow them to go in for this relatively expensive form of training, not the cheaper options to which TECs are being driven. The Minister must respond to the charge that the underfunding of TECs will mean a lack of skilled people working in construction.
Mr. Den Dover: The hon. Gentleman has asked the Minister a great many questions, but he has not said whether his party supports the continuation of the construction industry training board. Will he be a bit more positive and praise its efforts so far, and explain why his party supports the board's continuation, if indeed it does?
Does he not realise that it is impossible for the Government to create these jobs? If there is a market, with low interest rates and with growth in the economy, building will take off. We expected it to do so last year and this year, and one day it will happen.
Mr. Lloyd: Conservative Members may have been expecting that, but we have not. We have said that the wrong Chancellor is guaranteed to produce the wrong results. The green shoots of recovery never appeared. That was true at the time of the last election, when the hon. Gentleman went around his constituency claiming that the Conservative Government would not have to cut public spending, that the social programmes would be kept intact and that there would be no tax increases under a Conservative Government. In the light of this afternoon's statement and of other events, that argument is no longer sustainable. The Government have failed the economy and the construction industry. They have sat on their hands and allowed the economy to go down the pan, and they are guilty of allowing the construction industry to go down the pan, too.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to say some kind words about the CITB. I do not come here sponsored by anyone. I come here to advocate the case for better training. I shall have something to say about the CITB in a while. We must not allow the debate to turn on the narrow question of whether the Government can claim that they are doing something worth while. Their record in training and construction is pathetic. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this; he has taken part in these debates for a good number of years and I remember debating these matters with him many times. I hope that he will tell the Government precisely what he thinks about their failures and not allow them the easy ride so often allowed by Conservative Members on such important issues.
As I have said, there has been a gross failure to train, and 174,000 people disappeared from the industry in one year. From the height of employment in construction to its present depth, the most recent Government figures show that nearly 400,000 people have disappeared from the industry. In truth, the figure is much higher than that, because the Government under-records those who disappear and there is not an exact picture. Probably 500,000 people have been lost to the industry. That is a great waste of the skills and talents of people who have been trained in the past using public money and by means

781
of the levy system. That those skills have been allowed to dissipate is a cause for great shame and shows the monumental stupidity of the Government and others responsible.
The general view in construction is that many of those who leave the industry never return. It is certain that massive skill shortages will begin to appear early in any upturn in the industry. Last year, the industry was pressed harder than for many years. The IFF survey, ironically sponsored by the Department of the Employment. was called "Skill needs in Britain—1992". IFF describes its activities as "thoughtful research in British markets". Even in 1992, some 9 per cent. of firms had hard-to-fill vacancies in the previous 12 months. Even in the middle of a Government-inspired recession, some firms have skill shortages that they cannot easily put right. That shows that insufficiency of present skills training.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's view about the desperate state of the construction and allied industries. Does he agree that the orders should be passed so that the levy may continue for the lifetime of the existing board? There is great diversity of companies within the construction industry. Does he further agree that we need to get the right formula so that the structure of training meets the needs of all sections of the industry? I worked for many years in construction plant hire, and I declare an interest in that for many years I have been the parliamentary adviser to the Construction Plant-hire Association. Training must reflect the interests of all parts of the industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.
Mr. Lloyd: It is an interesting speech, with which I have considerable sympathy. In the past plant hire firms have criticised the CITB, but they are strongly on record as saying that they wish the CITB to continue and the review to conclude that there is a need for a levy. They said:
"If the present levy were to end there would be a rapid collapse in training with less responsible companies poaching trained operatives off those who have invested in training."
I agree with the CPA's comments to Government and others. It is about time the review ended, because it has dragged on for far too long. There may be questions about the organisations of training, but it is about time the Government concluded their deliberations with the private sector.
The Building Employers Federation has said that the CITB is too remote from the industry and needs to talk more to employers. We would say that it needs to talk more to employees as well. There must be more than lip service because major issues such as the industry's appalling health and safety record need to be addressed. That can be done only by involving both sides of the industry in the kind of partnership that we advocate.
The Minister has told us that, even after all those months and his departmental officials telling us that there would be an announcement by the end of January, we must still wait to have our uncertainty ended. That is ridiculous when training in construction is collapsing, and the future of the nation is being put at risk by the indolence and incompetence of Ministers.
I am never sure that I do the hon. Member for Macclesfied (Mr. Winterton) any favours when I say that
782
I find in these debates that he and I have far more in common than he has with those on his Front Bench. I will pay him a little tribute by saying that that is because he seems to care, and to think, about the issues. Would that we could see some sign of that among those on the Government Front Bench.
Even last year, a significant number of firms said that they had hard-to-fill vacancies. Two years before that, when we were already well into the recession, 44 per cent. of firms in the construction industry reported that they had hard-to-fill vacancies over the previous 12 months. We know that we do not need to move into a time of boom for skill shortages to emerge, but simply into a time when we are in a recession that is not quite as severe as this. That is what happened two years ago, and the frightening thing is that, since that time, the industry has probably lost 250,000 workers, or perhaps even more.
If the Minister can explain to me, or to any hon. Member, in a believable way, why we can take on trust his assurance that there will not be skill shortages when the recession finally bottoms out, he must know things way beyond what any intelligent commentator on the industry knows.
We need something simple—a CITB that is structured in a way that suits the needs of industry, and that is a matter for negotiation. Obviously, the Government are a central play, as are the industry and the board. We cannot allow matters to drift. For example, the CITB should not be raiding its assets, as it has been for several years, because the Government have chosen to make it operate in that way. We know that, in every year since 1988–89, the CITB has operated in deficit. It spent more than £4 million above its revenue in 1988–89, £1·5 million above in 1989–90, £7·7 million above in 1990–91, £4·1 million above in 1991–92 and a staggering £20·7 million above in the present year of 1992–93.
The Minister has to think how long the board can carry on doing that. Because of the decline in the industry, the levy has fallen in the past three years from £62.8 million to £54.2 million. If the board is to continue to train at the levels of the past year, it can do so only if it continues to raid the assets that it has built up over the years, and there is a limit to how long that can go on for.
At the beginning of the debate, I said that the previous Minister had talked about the success of counter-recessionary policies. The simple reality is that while the CITB has been trying to play its own role, when it operates on its own, it does so against such tremendous odds that it cannot possibly generate the necessary levels of skill in the construction industry. The Government must accept that it is time that they did something.
Another dilemma faces the construction industry, and I hope that Tory Members will take serious note of it, because it is not trivial. When the Department of Education changed the basis of the funding of colleges of further education, it threw a little bombshell into the structure of training in the construction industry. At the moment, the Building Employers Confederation is lobbying the Government on that issue, because it is fearful that the funding mechanisms will mean that college principals and managers will decide to withdraw from construction training because it is expensive compared with courses in, for example, the liberal arts and languages —and I do not mean to denigrate those disciplines.
Roger Elford of the confederation has said:

783
"There has got to be a funding mechanism which gives the colleges an incentive to mount expensive course like construction."
That was made clear to me two weeks ago when I visited a college of further education. The head of the department who was responsible for construction said that he was having to consider carefully whether he could justify the continuation of construction courses because of the high fixed capital costs and high running costs which stemmed from the need for materials. He stressed that he could run cheaper courses that were much more revenue generating.
I know that the Departments of Education and of Employment do not talk to each other, but it is about time that the Minister took a short journey and told his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Education that things are going seriously wrong. Those are not my words alone. They are echoed, for example, by the Building Employers Confederation, which is seriously concerned at the collapse of construction education in colleges of further education. It is a recorded fact that the CITB depends heavily, as does the ECITB, on the courses provided in FE colleges. The collapse of the course is not trivial. We know that the numbers of students signing on for such courses are down on previous years. The Minsiter must say what he intends to do about that.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) that I have painted a grim picture, but it happens, unfortunately, to display the truth. It spells out clearly that the Government planned on the basis that the recession would be far shorter than it has proved to be. In other words, they were disastrously wrong. When it became clear that the recession would continue for longer than had been thought, they refused to listen. They refused to take the necessary policy decisions. Even now, the Government are refusing properly to fund training generally. We know that the cuts in the overall training budget have increased by about a third over a few years.
We need a Government who are committed to training. We need also a Government who will commit themselves to the CITB to ensure that there is a properly structured training board for the construction industry, and the same applies to the engineering construction industry. Unfortunately, the Government will not adopt that approach while they pretend that there is no problem.
When there is an upturn in the construction industry, we shall face a horrendous problem. We shall have a balance of payments difficulty greater than that which we already have on the construction account, and that is becoming a serious matter. If we are to have a construction industry of the size that we need, we shall have to import skilled labour from outside Britain. That would be ridiculous and untenable. The hon. Member for Chorley shakes his head. He must come up with something better than that. We know, unfortunately, that training has declined. Where will the trainees come from? From where will skilled construction workers emerge? If the present circumstances are allowed to continue, we shall not see those people.
Exemption has been criticised by many groups over the years. The Federation of Master Builders has stressed that every company benefits from the CITB and that every company should contribute to it. It has made it clear that the good trainers face poaching by the bad trainers. There
784
is the anomaly created by the fact that those below the £45,000 payroll cut-off point are in competition with those just above it, which leads to unfairness.
We know that voluntarism does not work. There is evidence that in every industry throughout the country training has been cut to a greater or lesser extent in the middle of the recession. There has been a levy system in the construction industry, but the cuts have been massive.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has told us where he thinks the Government are going wrong, but he has not said whether he would increase the levy, or what the general levy for training would be if the Labour party had its way.
Mr. Lloyd: The Minister may not be aware—I sometimes doubt whether he does know this—that it is up to him and his colleagues to come up with practical and workable plans for training. The Government have deliberately chosen to underfund training and have refused to play their part in partnership with others in the industry. If Labour were in government, we would listen carefully to those in the construction industry who are saying that the levy is too low, that it does not allow those who want to train to do so adequately and that more needs to be done.
The income of the CITB has dropped dramatically. The Minister must come up with better answers than simply asking me what we would do. But I make this offer to the Minister: if he is prepared to accept cogent advice from the Opposition, we are prepared to help the Government by telling them how to run training. They have made such a disastrous mess of construction that future Labour Governments will inherit the skill shortages caused by their crass policies. There can be no graver indictment of the Government than that.
Of course we are in favour of the order. We shall not divide the House: half a loaf is always better than none. But I make it clear that this half a loaf is sabotaging the long-term future of the country.
10.46 pm
Mr. Andrew Bowden: I immediately declare my interest as a consultant to Ewebank Preece, which is the 13th largest firm of consulting engineers in the country. It is based in Brighton and employs a significant number of my constituents.
In 1989, only the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board and the Construction Industry Training Board kept their levy-raising powers, because, it was argued, of the mobile nature of their work forces. If that was intended to apply to mobile workers, it surely was not intended to apply to consultants, who are not in the same category. That is backed up by a letter than was sent by the Association of Consulting Engineers to a member of another place. It said:
"The training funded and organised by the ECITB is mainly at craft and technician level and very little of it is relevant to the majority of employees of consulting engineering firms."
In 1989–980, Ewebank Preece's levy was waived. In 1990–91, it was faced with a levy of £70,000. It is now contesting the levy. In 1991–92, under the new formula, the figure is £8,000.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Eight thousand pounds?
Mr. Bowden: Eight thousand pounds.
It seems that Ewebank Preece is being forced to pay the levy when other comparable consultants are not. This raises important points. It means that Ewebank Preece is in an unfair competitive position not only in relation to the levy but in relation to other costs. The preparation of the levy, the staff and the management time involved runs into considerable sums.
The Minister will recall that I tabled some parliamentary questions to find out who pays the levy. The information was not forthcoming. Why? Is it a state secret so that the House, the industry and the public cannot know who pays and does not pay it? On what conceivable grounds can my hon. Friend justify keeping that information secret? I suggest that a list of all the payers should be published because Ewbank Preece is convinced that many comparable consultancies are paying no levy. The company cannot be absolutely certain, but it would be fair and right if all the names were in the public domain.
What about the future? I know that the Minister cannot change the orders that we are discussing, but will he re-examine the White Paper published in December 1988, entitled "Employment for the 1990s"? On page 36 it states:
"The Government will, therefore, now enter into consultation with each of the statutory Industry Training Boards and organisations representing employers in their sectors with a view to drawing up an agreed programme and timetable for becoming independent, non-statutory bodies."
That was published in 1988, but not much has happened since then with regard to the two training boards that we are now discussing.
I suggest that next year my hon. Friend should consider alternative arrangements, such as using the training and enterprise councils to a greater extent. I believe that the TECs have been allocated funds well in excess of £2 billion for the coming financial year, so, perhaps a little extra for them to carry out that role would be the way to proceed. I hope that I have proved to my hon. Friend that the present situation is not as appropriate and fair as it should be. If so, we could ensure that the money for industrial training was used more effectively.
10.51 pm
Mr. Nick Raynsford: The debate takes place against a background that, I think all hon. Members will agree, is disastrous for the construction industry. Estimates of the number of people who have lost their jobs in the recession range from the most cautious and conservative figure of about 400,000 to 500,000 or more. One cannot open the pages of the construction industry press without seeing each week a further record of firms going bust.
This week's edition of Building magazine—I declare an interest as an occasional correspondent—records that Clayton Bowmore, a building firm with a turnover of £15 million a year and 240 employees, went into liquidation last week. The article states that the banks were responsible for its collapse, as was the case for A. F. Budge and Lilley, two other construction firms which also went into receivership recently. That is a regular occurrence; every week we read similar depressing stories.
The implications have been devastating for the Construction Industry Training Board. The previous page of Building magazine contains an article recording the CITB's 1991–92 annual report, which shows that more than 1,200 companies which had paid levies to the CITB
786
in the previous year folded in 1991–92 compared with an average of 300 in the previous four years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, its levy income has been cut dramatically as a result of so many firms going bust in the recession. That is the grim context in which we are considering the order.
The construction industry is vital for the future of this country's economy. Many of us believe that it is one of the keys to bringing the country out of recession. Many of us argue that the Government have been far too slow to take effective action to stimulate recovery in construction. One obvious example is the accumulated capital receipts of more than £5 billion available to local authorities which could be used urgently to stimulate building work. Another is the rapid construction of the Jubilee line, which I know that some Conservative Members have advocated as strongly as I have. That line is vital both for transport communications in east London and for our construction industry. Many such projects should be got under way far faster.
Irrespective of our argument about the lack of energy shown by the Government towards encouraging construction, we can probably all agree that it is essential for this country that we have a properly skilled labour force if we are to come out of recession and be able not just to build the roads, the houses and the infrastructure projects we need but to compete effectively in an increasingly competitive international market.
Training and the skills shortage have been serious problems for the construction industry in Britain for far too long. Before the recession, it was estimated that two thirds of operatives in the construction industry had no formal training. The number of trainees registered with the CITB fell from 135,000 in the mid-1960s to fewer than 50,000 in 1988 before the recession. Since then, we have seen the dramatic fall in training to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford has referred. The number of youth trainees fell from 14,385 in 1989 to 8,500 in 1992 —a 40 per cent. reduction. Apprenticeship registrations are down by a similar percentage.
The report that the Department of Employment commissioned on the future skills needs of the construction industry sadly produced evidence at the end of 1991 that productivity levels in Britain still compared very badly with those of our European competitors. We must tackle that problem with determination. We need industrywide training if we are to succeed.
Anyone with a serious interest in and knowledge of construction in Britain knows perfectly well that a voluntary scheme will simply not deliver what is required. That view comes from people with a trade union perspective and from people with an employer's perspective.
The Building Employers Confederation is pretty adamant on the issue. It says emphatically:
"Training in the construction industry is made particularly difficult because of the industry's structural characteristics: its national coverage; the highly competitive nature of its work ; scattered sites; short-term work load horizons which limit firms that train; the preponderance of small firms; mobility of labour-intensive sub-contracting and self-employment; the wide and ever-changing range of skills needs; and health and safety requirements.
Training has, therefore, to be nationally organised to national standards to meet the industry's needs. Collective funding is, thus, essential, and can only be effected through a statutory levy grant system which shares the cost of training and rewards firms that train.

787
If the levy is discontinued training will decline sharply, skill shortages will arise and productivity will suffer.
Thus the industry view is that the levy system must be retained."
Little could be more emphatic than that.
Bearing that view in mind, it is pretty depressing to record that the whole future of the CITB and the levy with which it finances its work have been in serious doubt in recent months. The Department of Employment review, the third in five years, has been dragging on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford rightly pointed out. That has caused, in the words of the Building Employers Federation,
"de-stabilisation of…training policy in the industry."
What a way in which to run training in the construction industry when the Government's rhetoric is that we are coming out of recession and when all hon. Members believe that we should be trying to come out of recession. We need a skilled, motivated work force to enable us to do that.
Mr. Dobson: It is a job creation scheme for bureaucrats.
Mr. Raynsford: It is a job creation scheme for Ministers, who are shuffling paper around while they are undecided about what to do about the scheme.
It is time to put an end to that uncertainty. it is time for
788
the Government to put aside their foolish ideological hankering after deregulation and their suspicion of any collective action and collective ventures such as industrywide training. It is time for whole-hearted commitment to high quality training throughout the industry.
We need a Minister who will take the matter seriously; who will act with some urgency to reinforce training and to support training initiatives to give some sense of security to those involved in the process; encourage the achievement of higher standards; ensure an adequate level of funding for the levy; and see that the CITB is free from Government meddling for the next four years until the next general election.
I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford about the need to reconsider the small firms exemption, which has an extremely arbitrary cut-off point that provides for unfair competition for firms whose payroll and labour-only sub-contracting costs fall below the £45,000 limit.
We need a positive commitment, not the reluctant and half-heared, lukewarm attitude that we have heard from the Government Front Bench. We need to send a clear message that, if Britain is to come out of recession—the construction industry has a role to play in enabling that to happen—it needs a highly skilled work force, and that will be achieved only with effective industrywide training based on a proper financial arrangements.
11 pm
Sir Michael Neubert: Debates on the order are an annual event. They tend to follow the same form: a few introductory remarks from the Minister and a major contribution from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, eager to make his mark and to castigate the Government for every sin in the calendar. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr Lloyd) spoke for 30 minutes of the 90 minutes available to us.
The contents of the order are largely unchanged, but the background against which we debate it does change. I concur that the background this year is the devastation in the building and construction industry as a result of the longest and deepest recession since the second world war. However, the idea that that is Government-inspired is absurd, and defies belief. That idea undervalues and minimises the effect of the contribution of the hon. Member for Stretford.
I am the parliamentary adviser in the House of Commons to the Federation of Master Builders to which reference has already been made. It represents small and medium-sized builders who have been particularly hard hit. The recession has naturally taken its toll. The FMB used to have more than 20,000 members, but its membership has now dipped below that figure.
Members do not have the accumulated reserves and the earlier expansive profit margins of the large contractors. They can hang in there for a year or two. However, when the recession enters its third year, as it has now, they start to go under.
The Government's stated policy, particularly in the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is very welcome, with its promise of labour-intensive major infrastructure projects, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr Raynsford), and the various forms of support for the housing market. However, the benefits tend to flow first to the major contractors and volume builders.
Work at supplier or sub-contractor level may follow from that afterwards, but only with a time lag. Small builders need work now. They are clinging on by their fingertips. None the less, the FMB fully supports the CITB and its statutory powers to raise a levy. It therefore supports the order. It believes in the supreme importance of training generally, in good times and in bad.
It is just as well that the CITB exists, because if the responsibility had been left on a voluntary basis, there would unquestionably have been a very sharp reduction in training—even sharper than has been the case. Small businesses that are under pressure will naturally look to cut corners and training would almost certainly have suffered as a consequence.
As it is, the CITB has drawn on £6.5 million of its reserves to embark on extra counter-cyclical training measures to combat the otherwise inevitable effects of recession. It has also worked closely with local enterprise companies and training and enterprise councils in joint enterprises to bring many millions more into play, as well as conducting its own grant-supported activity. That is to be welcomed and supported. Since our previous debate, I have had an opportunity of visiting its Norfolk headquarters in Bircham Newton, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if there is time.
790
No one should dispute the vital work of the CITB. After all, support for training is an expression of faith in the future. Recovery will come; the only question is when. For all those who are engaged in the construction industry, it is long overdue. Estimates have been made of the numbers who are likely to have been lost by the time recovery comes. The figure has been put as high as 600,000 construction operatives. Many of them will be lost to the industry for ever. If massive inflation in labour costs is to be avoided, we must have sufficient skilled craftsmen in place when the upturn comes.
Despite what has been said so derisively, there were signs of recovery a year or so ago. When I was campaigning in my constituency of Romford, in every street there were "house sold" boards. On the very eve of poll, on a building estate I saw the sign "bricklayers wanted". I thought that that was a sure signal that the recovery was here. As we know, that recovery was snuffed out, and it is easy to see why, by the recession in the German and American markets, which are both major markets for us. When we have a worldwide recession, it goes beyond all sense to suggest that it is entirely the work of the British Government. That has no credibility with the British public, and that is why they re-elected a Conservative Government last April.
The missing ingredient seems to be confidence. Everything else is present. We have low interest rates, low price rises, low wage settlements, high productivity and a competitive exchange rate. They mean that the formula exists for recovery to come—we must believe that it will. Nothing could be more calculated to boost confidence in construction than to see another sign saying "bricklayers wanted". It is the purpose of the CITB and the Government to ensure that sufficient skilled operatives are available when demand returns.
The principle is strongly supported, but the burden of training costs is not entirely equitable. Many small and medium sized businesses in particular would prefer to see contributions from all without exclusion. I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford, amazing as it might seem to him and to me. Those with a payroll cost of £45,000 or less secure exemption from the levy. Although there is an understandable reason for that—the need to encourage small business to emerge and to survive—those with more than three operatives see it as yet another illustration of unfair competition. In good times, one quarter of 1 per cent. of payroll costs might not seem very much, but in times as hard as these it is just one more disadvantage to carry in cut-throat competition.
Those who are struggling to survive at the bottom end of the market in a recession find themselves being ground small by upper and nether millstones. Above them they have the large contractors muscling in on their territory —one example given to me was of a major firm, almost a household name, bidding for the conversion of a house into two flats—and below them they have individuals or groups of individuals operating very largely without constraint or obligation, sometimes legally, sometimes illegally, getting work by word of mouth or small advertisements in local newspapers.
Legally, businesses operating below the VAT ceiling, for example, can undercut those above by 17·5 per cent. That is likely to be a considerable sum. As times are hard for the consumer as well as for the builder, it is a very substantial disadvantage. Nowhere else in the EC is the disadvantage so great. Our VAT threshold is at the

791
maximum of £36,000. In Belgium, Italy and Spain the threshold is nil. Apart from Ireland, which has different rates for services and goods, the next highest threshold is in France, just over £7,000. That is a unique burden of disadvantage.
VAT traders can, of course, offset costs on materials, but cowboy builders these days turn up at the local DIY and are able to buy their goods so cheaply that it does not much matter to them. Illegally, small legitimate builders face unfair competition from the black economy, in which it is a case of cash down and no questions asked. That is especially resented.
The loss of VAT, income tax and national insurance contributions should be a major concern for Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure that it is. How much effort is being made to recover those losses of revenue through fraud? Such fraud is of acute concern to small builders who operate above board and who struggle to make a living for themselves and their employees. In one country at least, I have heard that it is a criminal offence for work to be carried out without proper documentation and evidence of the transaction.
Who can blame legitimate builders for regarding the training levy, relatively small though it is, as yet another burden which is not borne by their competitors? Therefore, the FMB would like to see the exemption from the levy abolished. Despite the disadvantages de minimis, an obligation on all builders would ensure the proper importance of training, especially in health and safety matters, from the start, would remove the element of unfair competition and, what is more, would bring more funds to the function of training.
11.11 pm
Mr. John Spellar: First, I declare an interest as a member sponsored by and political officer of the EETPU section of Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. If it will not do irreparable damage, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on his speech. I am not sure that he drew the conclusions that the rest of us would draw, but on analysis he has clearly identified many of the problems facing the industry. That is not a way of saying that we alumni of Bromley borough council must stick together.
The hon. Member for Romford was speaking on behalf of an industry which is being sorely pressed. I am especially sorry that he did not share our expression of disappointment at the Minister's failure to make an announcement tonight. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Minister was not able to make an announcement about his decision on the future of the CITB.
Frankly, the matter has been dragging on for far too long. It is causing considerable concern not only to employees and those on courses with the CITB but to the industry, which obviously has to make plans slightly more than six weeks in advance. The failure to make an announcement tonight—although there had been hints that we might get something by using this debate as the mechanism—will only add to the uncertainty and gloom in an industry which has had more than its fair share of uncertainty and gloom in the past couple of years. Not
792
only can we look backwards at the gloom in the industry, but we can reasonably look forward to another year in which the position will get even worse.
The housing starts and the downturn in work for architects' practices show that this year could well be much worse than the preceding one. The Government must bear considerable responsibility for that. Reference has been made to that responsibility. I should like to respond to an intervention made by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover)—I am sorry that he is not in his place. He seemed to minimise the Government's responsibility or opportunity to deal with the problems of the work load.
The hon. Member for Chorley should examine the civil engineering industry, which is overwhelmingly dependent on the work from utilities and from Government Departments. The Government have a clear role and an opportunity to operate in that industry. We should not ignore the Government's responsibility in the private sector, especially in housing. Much of the downturn in the housing industry has resulted from a policy which was clearly, bluntly and explicitly expressed by a previous incarnation of the present Prime Minister, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in those famous words, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working." As we have heard in the debate tonight, the housing industry is especially hurting.
What makes the Minister's failure to make a clear statement tonight so extraordinary is that the case for the retention of the board is widely supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and by employers in the industry and the union. On a slightly cynical note, I thought that possibly the problem was that the Government listen to employers only when the employers want to disagree with the union, but if the employers agree with the union, they feel that the Government suspect collusion and conspiracy.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Like check-off.
Mr. Spellar: Yes, like check-off. If the employers agree with the union, somehow there must be something against the public interest. The position adopted in the rest of Europe is that the attitude towards the social partners is clearly understood and that therefore the Government's wish to work with them, rather than divide. Yet it is even more ironic that the major employers in the building industry are those to whom the Tory party continually trots for funds—that is when it is not going to Greek and Chinese millionaires.
The practical and realistic reasons which led the Government to retain the construction and engineering construction training boards when they disbanded others back in 1989 still hold true today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) rightly said, taking a considerable chunk out of my speech, the reason is the inherent nature of the industry. It is not simply that the arrangements are temporarily convenient to unions and management. The reason is the basic nature of the industry. It is by definition short-term. Employers and employees move from project to project and site to site. The work force on those sites are in continual flux as one trade goes off and another comes on.
Those are the factors which led the Government to recognise those realities in 1989. It is simply unfortunate that they have not come to a speedy decision tonight. The need for the training boards has been widely articulated across the industry. The chairman of the Construction

793
Industry Training Board is Sir Clifford Chetwood. Apart from holding that role, he is a major figure in the industry in his own right. In his foreword to the annual report of the CITB, he stated the position clearly:
"It is therefore with some satisfaction I report that, by judicious use of reserves and by the application of a range of counter-cyclical measures"—
perhaps Ministers remember those—
"CITB has been able to maintain training at an acceptable level during this period of deep recession in the industry."
He moved on to an area which, in the light of recent comments about being paid for working and so on, might strike a further resonance:
"The Board's Youth Training and other programmes have attracted over £35 million from TECs and LECs. In addition to this expenditure, CITB has provided grant support, amounting to almost £40 million, to employers who have undertaken approved training."
Furthermore, on the development of the all-important qualifications for skills, he said:
"Our work on the development of NVQs has resulted in these new qualifications now being available…for 28 construction occupations."
Reaffirming the industry's support, he said:
"I am delighted that industry has, once again, confirmed its support for the policies and achievements of CITB by their strong consensus in favour of the statutory levy."
Some doubt was expressed earlier about the attitude of the Building Employers Confederation, which, it is fair to say, represents mainly the larger employers in the industry. The hon. Member for Romford spoke substantially on behalf of the smaller and medium-sized employers in the industry. It might have been though that BEC could operate better on its own and more independently. It has stated clearly:
"The Building Employers Confederation is strongly in favour of the retention of the Construction Industry Training Board and of the statutory arrangements for the collection of levy in the interests of maintaining a satisfactory level of training in the construction industry."
It outlined some of the strong reasons why it felt that the CITB was an advantage to the industry. It pointed out the unique characteristics of the building industry, which have been mentioned several times in the debate, particularly the mobile nature of the work force. It also pointed out, as did Sir Clifford Chetwood, the ability of the CITB, which was probably better placed than many individual employers, to operate a counter-cyclical policy by investing the funds that it accumulated in good times to develop training in an essentially cyclical industry so that it had the trainees and skilled men available when industry picked up.
Furthermore, the BEC stressed the problem that has faced many industries—the poaching of skilled employees by companies which do not pay the levy. That has always been a difficulty for companies in engineering and so on, but it is of critical importance to employers in the building industry, again because the industry is highly mobile. Employers need to understand that if they undertake training they will not simply provide skilled workers for another firm which will pay an extra 50p or £1 an hour and attract those workers away. It is vital to the industry that that is not allowed to flourish.
The hon. Member for Romford effectively emphasised the need for all firms involved in the industry to be covered, so that some firms are not subject to unfair competition and there is a level playing field.
794
I shall not labour the point, but the BEC also mentions the problems that could be faced if there were any great dislocation of the industry, as many private providers of training could go out of business.
Finally, we must consider the number of youth training recruits who have been placed in the industry. Even in these difficult times, 10,000 youth training recruits have been placed in the industry this year. Those youngsters are being brought into the industry and provided with useful work, enabling them to envisage a potential future for themselves. As a result, the Government should seriously re-think. The Minister talks about an early announcement but time is ticking by. We are about six weeks away from the expiry of the Construction Industry Training Board, in April 1993. We need an early response from the Minister, and hopefully it will be a positive response to the debate.
11.20 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: We have heard a number of important contributions. I must first declare an interest because the headquarters and the main training centre of the construction industry training board is in my constituency, as is the civil engineering college. Not only does the CITB employ many employees in a remote rural area, but many trainees come through west Norfolk who spend money on goods and services in the locality, so it is a crucial part of my constituency.
The Minister is well aware of my views on the subject. There has been unanimous support from both sides of the House for the principle of the statutory levy. The arguments have been put most forcefully and I shall not repeat them, save to say that I wholly endorse the principle because without it the CITB would be unable to carry on in its present form, which would be a disaster for the construction industry, not least for the reasons about voluntarism suggested today.
Safety has been overlooked. There are still far too many accidents and injuries—and some fatalities—on building sites, but there would be many more without the very high standards of the CITB.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) tried to goad me into rapping the Minister over the knuckles for not coming to the House with a firm decision. I should have been somewhat concerned at the lack of any announcement today, had I not already spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister on several occasions. I know him well and have great confidence in him. I am convinced that he has already made his mind up. He has not yet been able to cross the t's and dot the i's, which is why he cannot come to the House with a firm decision, but I have little doubt that he will come here shortly with a firm statement to say that the statutory levy will be kept and that the CITB will remain in place.
I think that the Minister realises that at the time of the last review the CITB was asked to do a number of things to satisfy the Secretary of State's requirements. It carried out a strategic review and I pay tribute to all the staff at Bircham and to CITB staff throughout the country who worked to the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State three years ago and fulfilled the conditions that he insisted upon. I believe that all the conditions have been met. The CITB has worked hard during that time to fulfil the obligations placed upon it to modernise, so that it can be a leading training organisation as we move into the 20th century.

795
The board has done a great deal despite the difficulties posed by the uncertainty; the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) referred to the problems caused by it. I can speak with experience about the uncertainty that has pervaded Bircham Newton in the past couple of years and particularly in the past few months. The board's staff are well paid, professional people who have made a commitment to west Norfolk by making their homes and raising their families there. They are concerned about their future and anxious that the organisation in which they believe should continue. I do not doubt that the Minister will soon make the decision to end that uncertainty.
When the decision is made to retain the statutory levy, and therefore to keep the CITB in its present form, I hope that the next review will not be set for at least four years. I hope that the cloud of uncertainty does not continue to hang over Bircham Newton. Although the board employs staff of the highest standards and sets standards which are admired throughout the world, it cannot be easy for the instructors to work in such a climate of uncertainty.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the CITB will not be subject to a review for at least four years. I am certain that my hon. Friend will make the right decision. Such a decision is important not only to my rural constituency, because many jobs depend upon it, but for the future of our construction industry. An overwhelming case has been put for the retention of the CITB. Our construction industry will lead us out of the recession, but to do so it needs the highest possible standards and the necessary skills. It will only retain those skills with the retention of the statutory levy.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said today. I am sure that we shall have to wait only a short time before he makes the final decision and I have little doubt that it will meet with widespread pleasure not only in the House but throughout the industry.
11.26 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one part of the industry which comes within the remit of the CITB—the plant and equipment sector, which was mentioned briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have corresponded about a particular company in my constituency, a small business with three depots, the head of which is in Tiverton.
When the CITB agrees to give grants for training, it lays down certain criteria. The plant and equipment sector feels rather aggrieved at the fact that it has had to pay the levy, but has not qualified for grant. The criteria for eligibility for grant are that the training course should be related to the building and civil engineering industry.
The director of Howden Plant and Equipment Ltd., based in my constituency, has written to me as follows:
"We do not feel that Non-operated Plant and Tool Hire companies such as ourselves should be subject to levy as we provide a service to the public and the Construction and Building Industries. We are not actually the 'Construction Industry' in the sense that the original CITB was set up to cover."
That company has two trainees on block release and a mature fitter on day release. It pays their training fees and
796
also their full salaries while on that training. The company has been denied grant by the CITB and, to boot, is now subject to a fine of more than £1,100 for its proportion of the levy—yet no contribution from that levy went towards the training courses offered by that company.
When my hon. Friend prepares his review of the CITB, he should consider the plant and tool equipment sector carefully. As Howden Plant and Equipment states, it is a small business. Hon. Members have already mentioned the £45,000 threshold and its effect on such small businesses. Hon. Members will also appreciate that that small business, which has rightly sent its employees on the appropriate training courses for its sector of the industry, which has not received any grant aid from the CITB but which is still paying the levy and which has shown itself to be a responsible employer, still feels that it is being penalised because of its statutory obligations.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take that message on board when he comes to the House to give his decision on the review of the CITB.
11.29 pm
Mr. McLoughlin: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown great interest in the CITB tonight. If I cannot give a full answer to, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) and for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden), I shall write to them in due course about the specific problems that they raised.
I am amazed that Opposition Members should complain about the time that we have taken over the review. The Labour party has seen quite a number of reviews over the past few years. First, there was Lord Callaghan's review of why Labour lost in 1979; that was not very successful. Then there was the review by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), when he first became leader of the party; then, following another election defeat, there was another review. Yet we are told by the new Leader of the Opposition that there is to be yet another. After 14 years, Labour is still reviewing things. It has come to no answers—certainly no answer which have satisfied the time scale for reviews.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is good knockabout stuff, but the House would also like to know then the Minister intends to announce the results of the review.
Mr. McLoughlin: As I have said quite openly, both during this debate and on other occasions, we hope to come to the review shortly. It is clearly not the case that we have only six weeks; reconstitution of the CITB will take place in May this year, so there is some time to go. However, I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who has a direct constituency interest: the sooner the announcement can be made, the better it will be for everyone concerned. My hon. Friend made a number of important points, which I shall consider carefully. The review was set in train some years ago, and I appreciate the time scale problems. I cannot pre-empt the Government's decision by following the attractive route mapped out by my hon. Friend, but I shall take into account what he said when we make our decision.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) wondered whether we ever talked to the Department for Education, and expressed particular concern about the new arrangements for college funding. Of course we talk to the

797
Department; the points raised by the hon. Gentleman have been raised with me when I have met the Building Employers Confederation, and we shall make the necessary representations. I regularly meet the Minister responsible for higher education to discuss matters which are of interest to both the Department of Employment and the Department of Education. It is nonsense to suggest that there is no communication between the two Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown specifically mentioned the way in which the levy had been applied to a firm in his constituency. I shall look into that in more detail, but he willl understand that I cannot give him a direct answer now. The sort of points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and for Kempton will no doubt be put to us in the course of the review. When there is a levy on an industry, it is right that those paying it should feel that they are well served by the training boards to which they are obliged to contribute.
In the course of the review, we shall consider all the representations made to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) asked what the levy should be. I understand his point of view. Small businesses may feel that without the exemptions the levy might be too complicated and difficult to collect. Far from reducing the number of problems with the black economy, which my hon. Friend pointed out, the payment of another levy might exacerbate them.
There have been a number of representations on this very point—some arguing, like my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), that the rate should be reduced, others asking for an increase in the number of exemptions. We shall consider these ideas carefully.
We have had a wide-ranging debate on the future of the CITB, and I hope shortly to be able to make an announcement. The levy has received support from hon. Members on both sides, and I commend the orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 30 November, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

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

  INTERNATIONAL RAILWAYS TARIFFS
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (International Railways Tariffs Agreements) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18 January, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  SCOTTISH HOSPITAL TRUSTS
  That the draft Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1993, which was laid before this House on 18 January, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

European Community Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.).
European Community Documents

  HAZARDOUS WASTE (INCINERATION)
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5761/92 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 26 January 1993, relating to the incineration of hazardous waste and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that instruments of this type contain strict but achievable, and monitorable, combustion conditions and emission limits in order to minimise the risks of pollution from incinerators, which represent an important waste disposal option.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.).

  PENSION FUNDS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9752/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Social Security on 10 March 1992, relating to the management and investment of pension funds; and endorses the Government's view that the terms of the draft Directive will benefit the United Kingdom by enabling non-United Kingdom pension funds to invest in the United Kingdom and to employ the services of United Kingdom fund managers.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

Airlines (Competition)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Greg Knight.]
11.37 pm
Sir Keith Speed: I am glad to have the opportunity to concentrate on some aspects of international competition between the airlines serving the United Kingdom. I do not intend to deal with internal competition or with the slot problems at Heathrow, about which we have heard a great deal in recent times. I am sure that the Minister will be glad to hear that.
I am getting tired of sections of the media, the general public and others continually saying how uncompetitive British industry and British commerce are vis-a-vis Europe. By and large that is not true. It is especially not true of our airlines. None of them is state-owned. They do not receive subsidies, yet they provide high-quality service both for the customers and for the shareholders, without any assistance from the taxpayer. That goes for British Airways, British Midland, Virgin Atlantic and Britannia. These and many others are doing a great deal for the United Kingdom economy.
The same, alas, is not true of some of the airlines of our European partners. Many of them are wholly or partly state-owned. Many of them have overt or hidden subsidies. Some of us believe that the creation of a single European market on 1 January this year and the liberalisation of air services in the "third package" should have brought about the conditions for real competition in European air transport.
British airlines have nothing to fear and much to gain from fair competition, but is the competition fair? All the national flag carriers in the European Community, with the exception of British Airways, have state shareholdings, and usually the majority of the shares are Government-owned. That is okay, provided that Government money is not put into the airlines without any check or accountability or an examination of the airline's viability.
It is quite clear that many of the European airlines that have received Government money are not viable and that the share subscription or loans or other funds are put into those airlines on terms and conditions that are not available to private companies. Any Government guarantees to airlines in the EC must be valued and taken into account when the whole issue is properly looked at. Mergers or substantial financial investment in other companies should be examined with special care to make sure there is a proper market strategy that is subject to scrutiny by the competition authorities. That means that there should be no question of subsidies enabling an airline in country A to have a major investment in an airline of country B.
Air France recently took a controlling stake in the Czechoslovakian airline, CSA. The deal was financed by French state banks and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Air France and its partner, Sabena, have also been able to pass on to CSA several of their excess Boeing aircraft orders. Air France, with the backing of the French Government, has managed to achieve a controlling interest in one of the emerging central European airlines.
Air France has also had new state aid for restructuring totalling some FF3,250 million. Iberia, the national airline of Spain, has had significant new state finance totaling
800
$1.2 billion. Al Italia, the state airline of Italy, has had over 25,000 million lire in contributions and grants from the European social fund and unspecified contributions from the Sicilian authorities towards promotion and advertising of the airline. Sabena was granted just under $1 billion in 1991 by the Belgian Government and other public authorities to sort out its problems at that time.
None of those grants or aids is subject to the stringent public service obligations that should be properly examined by the European Commission and the relevant national Governments. I am afraid that the situation is no better in terms of regulatory charges, which involve quite large sums. In the United Kingdom, the Civil Aviation Authority has to recover all its costs from the United Kingdom airlines and make a return on capital. That is right, and I pay tribute to the CAA for its work and its high standards. It does not cost the taxpayer a penny, but it means that our airlines have to make the equivalent of a recovery of 108 per cent. of the regulatory costs charged to them by the CAA. In the case of British Airways, that amounts to tens of millions of pounds each year for the services provided by the CAA.
Let us examine the position in Europe. Belgium recovers less than 5 per cent. from its airline; the rest is paid from taxation. Denmark is better, because it recovers 70 per cent. and is working towards 100 per cent.
In France, only 64 per cent. is recovered from the airlines; in Germany, from Lufthansa and others, only 15 per cent.; in Greece, only 14 per cent. In Holland it is better, with 55 per cent. recovered, largely from KLM. in Spain, from Iberia and other Spanish airlines, none is recovered. The entire sums are paid out of general taxation, because it is in the interests of the Spanish airlines. That is not good enough, and it means that national airlines gain a considerable subsidy from the Governments of those countries.
Before that other great aviation country, the United States, becomes too smug, let me make it clear that its carriers are not able to survive against tough competition unless they have a certain protection when they get into great difficulties. That is the protection from their creditors that is offered by chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code in the United States. That means that the prime aim of airline companies getting into difficulties and seeking protection under chapter 11 is to protect themselves from their creditors and generate cash flow rather than profit. They can continue trading without normal concerns for operating margins. The airlines operating under chapter 11 include Continental, which has embarked on a major advertising campaign in the UK, TWA and America West.
I hope that the Minister will agree that those European and transatlantic examples are to be condemned as unfair and subsidised competition, which, in 1993, casts doubts over the willingness of Governments to accept the implications of the single market and of competitive airlines that can operate within the rigours of the market.
Transparency, viability and the commercial regime should be the watchwords for the Commissioners in Brussels, and there is much still to be done. We should remind President Clinton and others in the new American Administration that chapter 11 solves nothing and distorts competition, not least to existing viable US airlines such as Delta, United and American.

801
The airlines are in a disgraceful situation. British airlines are trying to compete—indeed, are competing successfully and profitably—with their hands tied behind their backs.
I conclude by quoting the last paragraph of the report from the Air Transport Users Committee for 1992:
"The achievement of the single market for air transport has the potential to bring great benefits for consumers, but these benefits can easily he negated unless the Commission makes full and effective use of its powers under the Treaty to ensure that all carriers are able to compete on level terms. The greatest threat to the success of the Community's policies is in this vital sector of the economy lies in the distorting effect of state aids, and the Commission must use its powers under Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to ensure that such aids are not only banned in law but also in reality."
I could not put it better, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that the UK Government are taking a firm line with the less efficient, less viable, subsidised airlines in Europe and the US.
11.48 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate and on raising such an important subject. I echo his sentiments about the immensely impressive progress that our aviation industry has made in general over the past few years. The cornerstone of that progress is a policy which has been remarkably successful. It is one that is based on competition, and it is focused on two fundamental concerns. First, there is the need to encourage a healthy aviation industry in the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is the need to facilitate customer choice as between airlines. The two concerns go very much together.
I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with the Government's firm belief that the pattern of air services and the fares charged should, as far as possible, be decided by the market. No outside influences should be allowed artificially to restrict the services available to the public and no collusion should be allowed to keep the prices charged unnecessarily high. It follows that those in the aviation industry who provide the right service profitably at the lowest price should thrive, but to do so they should be continuously open to challenge by competitors, and the barriers to new services should be minimal.
That belief remains the cornerstone of our approach to airline competition policy, because it is as true today as it ever was that competition gives customers choice. Competition between carriers produces better service to consumers as competing carriers seek to build new business and attract business from one to another by offering better deals and better services which better match what customers want.
We also continue to support the need for effective safeguard mechanisms to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, which is the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. It is vital for the maintenance of open and fair competition that all complaints of anti-competitive behaviour can be examined, and with appropriate speed.
Before I outline the arrangements which have been established in the European Community, I wish to echo my hon. Friend's praise of the United Kingdom aviation industry. We have a great deal to be proud about. In the United Kingdom there are 45 airlines. We have more airlines than any other country in the world, with the
802
exception of the United States. More than three quarters of our airlines—34—are licensed to operate international services. Quality as well as quantity has resulted from bringing competition to our home market. British Airways, British Midland, Britannia, Monarch and Virgin are all world leaders which are renowned for their service.
It is gratifying that so many United Kingdom carriers exemplify what a successful air carrier should be. They are financially strong, innovative and competitive. Perhaps most importantly, they are privately owned. They owe allegiance to no one but their shareholders and they operate wholly according to their own commercial expertise as inspired by customers' wishes. Lord King, during his 12 years as chairman of British Airways, succeeded in transforming BA from an airline which was known by its initials—I do not know whether this is unparliamentary—as bloody awful, into one which is among the finest in the world, if not the finest. That is the position on any test. I know that many hon. Members wish Lord King continued success in his role as president of BA.
Having seen at first hand the benefits of competition in our home market—benefits for consumers, the airlines, airports and the economy—we are keen to take the lead elsewhere. I am sure that United Kingdom carriers will be prominant in seeking to open up new markets and attract new passengers. So I fully expect United Kingdom air carriers to be introducing new ideas and services and to be setting new standards for service, pricing and frequency in order to generate business and make profits. I look forward to seeing the privately owned and commercially minded United Kingdom carriers benefiting most from the opportunities presented by liberalisation both within the Community's air transport market and elsewhere.
The United Kingdom has played a leading part in the arrangements which have been established in the Community. Here the results of our liberalisation policy have been impressive—even in the face of doubt caused by the fears of some about competition, itself heightened by the world-wide recession.
The European Community licensing arrangements which have been established are crucial because they identify carriers licensed by the United Kingdom and other member states as "Community air carriers". That now means something, as a Community air carrier has the freedom to establish anywhere in the EC, to attract EC and other investment, and to provide services within the EC. With the United Kingdom very clearly in the vanguard, the EC has decisively banished the old, outdated traditional system characterised by nationalism and protectionism, in which the consumer has been the principal loser, and instead established a truly liberal single market in air transport on 1 January this year. It would be over-ambitious to expect dramatic changes to take place overnight, but the single market created by the third liberalisation package sets the ground rules and creates the opportunities for the aviation industry of the future in Europe.
By introducing common criteria for operator licensing —in other words, removing the possibility of flag carriers being given preferential treatment—and by removing restrictions on market access and pricing through the EC, all Community carriers have now been put on an equal footing. The market is now open to those with a stomach for a competitive environment, and the onus is on carrier to offer the sort of services that the customer requires and to set fares in the light of market conditions, rather than

803
by cosy agreements with Government. This gives a green light to carriers which are prepared to go out and win business—provided always, of course, that they are safe; there has never been any suggestion that safety standards would be compromised.
I was sorry when my hon. Friend announced at the beginning of his speech that he did not intend to mention slots at Heathrow, as I had prepared an extensive part of my speech to deal with that—[Interruption]. I accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to regurgitate at least part of what I had prepared.
I am immensely proud to say that BA holds a smaller proportion of slots at Heathrow than many of its major EC competitors hold at their base airports, which demonstrates the success of our competition policy. For example, it holds a smaller proportion of the Heathrow slots than Lufthansa holds at Frankfurt and Munich, Iberia at Madrid, Sabena at Brussels and Air France at Charles de Gaulle. That is directly relevant to the thrust of the first two major points that my hon. Friend made about the extent to which national airlines rely on state aid.
We regard it as essential that we follow up the liberalisation agreement with progress in the key area of state aid. Cash injections to state-owned airlines on terms which would not be available in the private sector place those carriers at a distinct and unfair competitive advantage. Those injections are made in large individual cash lump sums, of which my hon. Friend gave examples, or in subsidised regulatory fees, for which the Civil Aviation Authority endeavours fully to recover costs. My hon. Friend is right to point out that that practice is not followed across the Community, and there is clearly scope for further work on precisely that point. We are quite clear that state aid should be rigorously controlled, and where terms would not be available in the private sector those state aids should not be allowed.
The Commission published guidelines on aviation state aid in 1984. They are nine years old now, so we have sought the uprating of existing Commission guidelines to tie in with the single market under the changes in the legal framework in recent years. The Commission's commitment to do so is therefore welcome. It is important that the Commission applies the guidelines in a way which is consistent with the concept of a liberal single market, and we shall continue to press for that. We shall also continue to ensure that cases of anti-competitive behaviour are dealt with rigorously within the framework of effective safeguards already in place.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment on each of the examples that he gave. I shall simply confine myself to sharing his concern about the logic that the Commission appeared to be pursuing in not finding some of the cases to which he referred obvious examples of state aid in circumstances which have conveyed an unfair competitive advantage.
The CAA currently has powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, EC regulations and supplementary domestic regulations to investigate complaints of anti-competitive practices made against United Kingdom carriers and to take appropriate remedies. Those powers
804
are part of the CAA's powers to vary carriers' EC operating licences or their United Kingdom non-EC route licences.
Member states can put their views to the Commission in cases where the free play of competition may have been distorted, and we shall continue positively and constructively to put forward the United Kingdom's views on individual cases.
United Kingdom carriers may make a complaint to the Commission under articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome, as my hon. Friend said. Article 86, which covers abuse of a dominant position, is also actionable in the United Kingdom courts. Special regulations apply the articles to aviation and give the Commission important powers to intervene. They include the so-called "cease and desist" regulation, which enables the Commission to take quick interim action to stop a small airline being driven out of business before there is time to put any of the other procedures into operation.
The third package is very good news. It helps airlines to generate more business and earn greater profits. Successful carriers operating in a free market are less likely to need Government financial backing and state aid. It will also benefit consumers, as an efficient and competitive airline market will bring the prospect of new, improved services and will put downward pressure on air fares.
I should like to say one last word on the viability and attractiveness, or otherwise, of European airlines. It is surely extraordinary that, despite the examples of continued state funding—let us put it no more strongly than that—by other Community Governments of their national flag carriers, and despite the fact that British Airways, an example of a former flag carrier which is still a proud flag carrier for British aviation, operates in the free market and is entirely dependent on convincing hankers of the value of its capital programme if it wishes to reinvest, it is British Airways which continues to set standards throughout the world, and does so with a profit.
That should be the test. There must be a lesson to be learnt by every European Government: it is not state intervention and constant state subsidy which produce better quality services, but forcing airlines to accept the rigours of the market and of competition on entirely free and equal terms. That is how to improve the quality of airlines throughout Europe, and it will benefit me, my hon. Friend, every hon. Member and every citizen in this country and in the Community.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of unfair competition from United States airlines cushioned by chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. We flagged the anti-competitive implications of that protection with the United States Government in the context of our wider talks on liberalisation. However, a review of chapter 11 has not been one of our priorities to date. The two United States airlines supported by chapter 11 which currently operate transatlantic services—TWA and Continental Airlines—are not significant players in the market.
I asked my officials to examine the number of flights that they operate in the UK. United States carriers—non-chapter 11 protected carriers—operate 41 services a day to London and six to the regions. United Kingdom carriers operate 31 services a day to London and three to the regions. That is a total of 72 flights to London every day by non-chapter 11 carriers.
Against that, TWA has one service a day to London and Continental Airlines has four. In summer 1993—the

805
period for which I am quoting the figures—TWA and Continental represent only about 6 per cent. of the market. However, although I make that point to explain to my hon. Friend that it has not been our first priority—it is also in the context of other liberalisation and trading issues that we are currently discussing with our American colleagues —it does not mean that we do not take the issue seriously. We are certainly ready to take the issue further if it represents a real problem for United Kingdom airlines.
My hon. Friend referred to the whole philosophy of chapter 11, which is that it does not allow the market to operate in its normal sense. Broadly speaking, when a carrier is no longer able to provide services profitably and has exhausted its credit, it simply disappears from the market and allows stronger carriers to take on the services. To that extent, my hon. Friend is right: the whole concept of chapter 11 is at odds with the concept of a free market.
Elsewhere, we have sought arrangements with countries in the far east, in Australasia, in Africa and in South America which allow scope for extra competition between airlines and flexibility on routing, capacity and pricing. Significant progress has already been made with Hong
806
Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, New Zealand, Brunei and South Africa, and we are currently in discussion with others in those regions.
As with all our moves towards the liberalisation of air services, we insist that safeguards must be put in place at the same time to protect against anti-competitive practices. That aspect of our policy is just as much in the interests of a healthy, competitive aviation industry as it is in the interests of air transport users.
I believe that my hon. Friend shares the conviction that the Government have led the way—within the Community, certainly—in establishing the parameters of the third liberalisation package. We have consistently led the way on the advantages of the free market. Through the strength of our domestic airlines, we have demonstrated that those policies are successful. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my enthusiasm for continuing to press the important matters that he has raised today to ensure that the market works fairly and not to the disadvantage of United Kingdom carriers.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish the specification for the post for each category of judicial appointment, outlining the selection criteria.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The criteria employed by the Lord Chancellor are set out in the latest edition of the booklet "Judicial Appointments: the Lord Chancellor's Policies and Procedures", which was published in November 1990. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Judiciary
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to reform the judiciary.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has confidence in the judiciary in its present form. However, he is always ready to bring forward proposals for reform which he considers to be desirable in the public interest. For example, the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill[Lords], at present before this House, provides among other things for reduction of the retirement age of judges to 70.

  Law Officers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department what requirements there are that(a) the Lord Chancellor, (b) the Attorney-General and (c) the Solicitor-General be legally qualified; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor must be a person able to discharge duties as the President of the Supreme Court of Judicature—that is, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Crown court—and also as the presiding chairman of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General must be legally qualified in order that they may perform their general duties; and are members of the Bar in order that they may represent the Crown in each of the Queen's courts in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland.

  Barristers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to make available to barristers who are unsuccessful in an application for silk the grounds on which he decided not to put their names forward.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Competition for appointment as Queen's counsel is intense. It is inevitable that many able 404
  applicants will be disappointed. However, it is always open to any unsuccessful applicant to see a senior official of the Lord Chancellor's Department to discuss his or her application and the view the Lord Chancellor took in that case. Each year a number of practitioners avail themselves of this facility.

  Court Lists
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what instruction he has given to magistrates courts regarding the imposition of charges for court lists; if he will list the level of such charges in all courts in England and Wales: and whether these are levied across the board or apply only to specific groups.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None; however, in 1989 the Home Office advised magistrates courts that the news media should be asked to meet the costs of providing copies of court papers. The charges, and the circumstances in which they may be sought, will vary from court to court and details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what number and proportion of cases granted legal aid in each of the past five years are those where the involvement of a solicitor could have been avoided because other agencies could have helped free of charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available. However, advice agencies are able to provide a high standard of advice on a wide range of matters, such as housing and employment difficulties, about which solicitors are also consulted.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian authorities to stop executions, with particular reference to cases where defendants claim that they have not had a fair trial.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Together with EC partners we made representations to the Iranian authorities in May 1992 about the high number of executions in Iran and specifically the summary execution of a member of the Baha'i community. In October we made representations about the death sentences passed on two other Baha'is following summary trials and the right of defendants to a lawyer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also raised these latest cases with the Iranian Foreign Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in September. They are now being reviewed by the Iranian authorities. International concern at the high number of executions and the absence of guarantees of due legal process in Iran was highlighted in the resolution on human rights in Iran, which we and our EC partners co-sponsored, and which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how Her Majesty's Government were represented at the fourth part of the forty-fourth ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from 1 to 5 February.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Parliamentary Session on 2 February, in his capacity as chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to deliver the statutory report of that body and to answer questions from the parliamentarians. He took the opportunity to make a short statement in his national capacity.

  Bosnia
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the relative contributions of countries providing military support towards the United Nations humanitarian aid effort in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following troops have deployed to the United Nations protection force in Bosnia to offer protective support for convoys of humanitarian aid and released detainees:

  Number

  United Kingdom

  2,500

  France

  1,800

  Canada

  1,200

  Spain

  750

  Netherlands

  580

  Denmark

  150

  Belgium

  120

  Norway

  35

  Portugal

  12

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals or decisions have been made for the presidency or secretariat of each Council of Ministers of the European Community to issue an official minute of each of their meetings, to include a reflection of the views expressed, the decisions reached and the record of votes cast.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Council secretariat already issues press releases after each Council meeting providing brief details of the discussion and of any agreements reached. Following a decision by the Edinburgh European Council, the Council secretariat will include in this press release the record of the vote, including explanations of the vote where delegations request these, whenever a formal vote is taken in Council.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding his policy towards the renewal of the United Nations mandate in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We consider renewal of the mandate of the United Nations protection force in Croatia 406
  to be crucial to the peace process and will pursue it in the Security Council when it falls due. Initial discussions are already under way.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the numbers of displaced persons currently in Bosnia Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are some 740,000 displaced people in Bosnia Herzegovina; of these 480,000 are in central Bosnia and western Herzegovina.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the prevalence of war crimes in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are appalled by the numerous allegations that violations of international humanitarian law have taken and continue to take place in the territory of former Yugoslavia. The United Nations Security Council has established a commission of experts to examine and analyse information on such breaches submitted by states.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom staff are employed in Her Majesty's embassies in(a) Zagreb and (b) Belgrade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 8 February, there were seven United Kingdom-based staff at the British embassy in Zagreb and 28 United Kingdom-based staff at the British embassy in Belgrade.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the supply of arms and munitions to Serbian irregulars, militia and Chetniks currently operating in Bosnia Herzegovina and Croatia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of allegations in the media concerning the supply of arms to these groups. We have no specific information to corroborate these reports.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of current United Nations sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The economic effects of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro are becoming increasingly evident. In concert with our EC and other partners, we are offering assistance to the Danube's riparian states in order to prevent the recurrence of the recent breaches of the embargo. On 4 February, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe appointed an executive sanctions co-ordinator, who will be responsible for ensuring that sanctions are applied as rigorously as possible.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has of the number of people killed through artillery fire in the current conflict in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are unable to provide definitive statistics about casualties caused by artillery fire in Croatia and Bosnia. Reports of numbers killed differ radically according to source.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of Stare for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest assessment by Her Majesty's Government of the capacity of the Governments of the south African region adequately to feed all their people.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The prospects are that this year's harvest will be much better than last year's, but it is still too early to make an accurate assessment.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements exist within his Department to assess need for aid to Sierra Leone and monitor its use.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Officials of ODA's west and north Africa department, in conjunction with the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with the high commission at Freetown, make regular assessments of economic and social conditions in Sierra Leone, and thus of the need for aid. British aid activities in that country are monitored by the high commission and by officials from the Overseas Development Administration.

  Lithuania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new applications he is considering for the use of the know-how fund in Lithuania.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund is considering four new projects which will benefit the agriculture and energy sectors and small business creation. These are valued at approximately £366,000. Other smaller projects are also in the pipeline, but have not yet been costed.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect on Overseas Development Administration programmes in the first and second years of a return by the United Kingdom to UNESCO.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No decision has been taken to rejoin UNESCO.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research Councils
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the total identifiable expenditure(a) of all and (b) of each of the research councils (i) has been spent in England and in Wales in each of the last five years and (ii) is intended to be spent in England and Wales in 1993–94.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  In 1991–92 the research councils collectively spent approximately 72 per cent. of their grant 408
  in aid in England, and approximately 4 per cent. in Wales. The respective percentage figures for the individual Research Councils were as follows:

  Per cent.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  84 and 7

  Economic and Social Research Council

  81 and 2

  Medical Research Council

  82 and 1

  Natural Environment Research Council

  75 and 15

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  67 and 2

  Figures for earlier and subsequent years are not available.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what procedures are employed in the selection of members of(a) research councils, (b) the boards of research councils and (c) the funding committees of research councils; and what independent mechanism within his Department exists to ensure the fairness of the process and the distribution of members among the various institutions active in each field of research;

  (2) what procedures are employed to ensure that membership of research councils, the boards of those councils and the funding committees of those councils does not give any undue advantage in the allocation of funds to institutions to which the members belong.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Members of the research councils are appointed after wide consultation with interested Departments and the councils themselves. The Government aim to secure an appropriate balance of academic and industrial expertise and experience.

  The composition of their committees is a matter for the councils themselves, as is the allocation of funds to institutions. Each council operates a system of peer review, aimed at securing the highest scientific quality in competition for the funds available.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  "Red Hot Dutch"
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many complaints he has received from those members of the public who have paid for decoders which enable them to receive a satellite programme called "Red Hot Dutch".

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received some 450 letters from members of the public about the satellite television channel "Red Hot Dutch", now renamed "Red Hot Television". Most of those who have written appear not to be subscribers to the channel; but it is not possible to be sure of that.

  BBC Income
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the total income of the BBC in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how much and what percentage of that income was derived from the licence fee in each of those years.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The information requested is set out in the table.
  409

  Year

  Net licence fee income £ million

  Total income £ million

  Licence fee income as a percentage of total income Per cent.

  1982–83

  683.2

  694.4

  98.39

  1983–84

  702.0

  718.9

  97.65

  1984–85

  723.1

  736.0

  98.25

  1985–86

  922.9

  935.7

  98.63

  1986–87

  960.7

  983.2

  97.71

  1987–88

  1,019.6

  1,069.6

  95.33

  1988–89

  1,080.1

  1,116.4

  96.75

  1989–90

  1,171.5

  1,212.6

  96.61

  1990–91

  1,274.6

  1,298.8

  98.14

  1991–92

  1,393.6

  1,413.4

  98.53

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will outline the proposed restructuring of the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the policy relating to criminal prosecutions by the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service applies the principles set out in the "Code for Crown Prosecutors". A copy of the code is in the Library.

  Lambeth Council
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration the Serious Fraud Office has given to the issues arising out of the recent report under section 5 of the Local Government Act 1988 on the conduct of some departments of Lambeth council.

  The Attorney-General
  The director of the Serious Fraud Office has been in contact with the Audit Commission in connection with this report and has asked the Metropolitan police to keep him informed of matters brought to their attention regarding Lambeth council so that he can decide what, if any, action by the Serious Fraud Office might be appropriate.

TRANSPORT

  Disabled People (Public Transport)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with local authorities regarding access to public transport for the disabled.

  Mr. Freeman
  My department is in close and regular touch with local authorities on a wide range of issues to improve services for the disabled including the introduction of low-floor buses, design standards for light rapid transit systems and accessible taxis.

  Coach Safety
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has recently had with the European Commission on the subject of coach safety.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has regular communication with the European Commission on directives covering various aspects of vehicle safety, including those affecting coach safety.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support he has received from the United Kingdom freight industry for his proposals to privatise British Rail freight.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Our discussions suggest that the great majority of existing rail freight users support our proposals to privatise British Rail's freight businesses. Like us, they believe that they offer the best hope of providing a rail freight industry for the future which will be competitive and respond to customers' needs.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications of his legislative proposals for British Rail upon the lines north and west of Inverness.

  Mr. Freeman
  As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced on Second Reading of the Railways Bill, ScotRail, which includes the services north and west of Inverness, will be one of the first groups of services to be prepared by BR for franchising.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to ensure that the present standards of safety currently held by British Rail are imposed upon new private sector operators.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have accepted all the Health and Safety Commission's recommendations for a safety regime which will ensure that high safety standards on the railways are maintained after privatisation. The recommendations have also been endorsed by the chairman of BR.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of rail services in south Wales after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this House on 2 February in the debate on the Second Reading of the Railways Bill.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the subsidy required to maintain the Southampton-Eastbourne railway service after the franchising of this route.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have made no such estimate. In the process of franchising British Rail passenger services, subsidy requirements will in future be market tested. It has not yet been decided whether this service would be franchised on its own or as part of a larger grouping.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps will be taken to ensure that a privatised British Rail will cater adequately for disabled passengers.
  411
  Mr. Freeman
  Under our proposals for railway privatisation, all railway operators will be required by the terms of their operating licences to have regard to the needs of passengers with mobility handicaps. The regulator will be responsible for issuing and checking compliance with railway licences and he will have a specific statutory duty to look after the interests of disabled passengers.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to develop regional airports within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We believe that future development at regional airports is best undertaken in the private sector. That is why we are encouraging their privatisation. We are also providing more opportunities for air services from regional airports through our liberalisation policies.

  Traffic Cameras
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will extend the use of red light and speed cameras in London.

  Mr. Norris
  It is for the Metropolitan police and the City of London police to decide on the deployment of red light and speed cameras in their respective areas of London.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest position on the plans to extend the Jubilee line.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Negotiations are continuing with the administrators of Olympia and York Canary Wharf on the terms of an agreement on which they are to contribute towards the cost of the Jubilee line extension. We have made provision for the construction of the extension subject to a satisfactory agreement being reached.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make statement on the current outturn of expenditure on the Jubilee line development relative to budget.

  Mr. Norris
  Through London Underground Ltd., the Government have spent nearly £160 million preparing to build the Jubilee line extension. The latest approved estimate of the total cost of the extension is £1.5 billion at June 1990 prices—something over £1.8 billion cash.

  Railway Closures
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to keep in place the present procedures which must be undertaken before a railway is closed.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Railways Bill sets out new closure procedures no less rigorous than the present ones. The current arrangements will continue to apply to lines and stations which are not currently operated by British Rail.

  Buses (Urban Areas)
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to encourage the use of buses in urban areas.
  412
  Mr. Freeman
  I recently announced the allocation of over £15 million to local authorities in England for bus priority measures in 1993–94. This represents a substantial increase on the sum originally budgeted for. Some £4 million was allocated in 1992–93 for similar schemes.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses he plans to start building in the next financial year.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We plan to start 19 new bypasses, 83 miles in length, in the next financial year.

  In addition to these schemes, there are 22 other national schemes planned to start in England next year. Although not described as bypasses, most of these relieve one or more communities of through traffic.

  My Department is also funding the construction of 24 local bypasses and relief roads through the transport supplementary grant and borrowing approvals announced in December.

  London Transport (Investment)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the level of London Transport's investment in 1993–94.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about London Transport's investment plans for 1993–94 and subsequent years. These have included letters from hon. Members, local councillors and members of the public.

  M1 (Lighting)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to extend the lighting on the M1 motorway.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is proposed to extend the lighting on the M1 between junctions 40 and 42 and to light the M1/M62 interchange. Further lighting is expected on sections of the M I as they are widened to four lanes.

  Waterloo-Exeter Line
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when British Rail expects to introduce the proposed new trains on the Waterloo-Exeter line.

  Mr. Freeman
  The first new train for the Waterloo-Exeter line was delivered to British Rail on 23 January. It will enter passenger service shortly. The remaining trains should be in service by July.

  Public Transport (London)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of his Department's budget for London is spent on public transport.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not have a separate budget for expenditure in London. But, in the current financial year, London Transport and Network SouthEast are expected to invest in total about three times the amount which the Department will be spending on the construction and capital maintenance of roads in London.

  London Underground
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has received from London Transport on capital investment for the modernisation of London Underground.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department regularly receives investment proposals from London Underground. Spending plans for 1993–94 and following years have not yet been finalised.

  The Minch
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Minch is designated by Her Majesty's Government as an internal sea or an internationally recognised navigable strait; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  By virtue of the United Kingdom Territorial Water Order in Council 1964 the area known as the Minches is within the internal waters of the United Kingdom.

  By virtue of article 5 of the UN convention on the territorial sea and contiguous zone 1958, ratified by the United Kingdom on 14 March 1960 there exists a right of innocent passage through that area.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the results of his review of section 8 grants.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's speech during the Second Reading of the Railways Bill on 2 February Official Report, columns 164–65.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the section 8 grant budget.

  Mr. Freeman
  This will depend on demand and other calls on public expenditure. The budget is kept under review and to date no schemes have been turned down through lack of funds. The need for additional funding will be considered in the light of the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend on 2 February,Official Report, columns 164–65.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list what information he has of individual items of traffic transferred from rail freight distribution and train load freight to roads since July 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a commercial matter between British Rail and its customers.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the operational and infrastructure cost savings he expects for the rail freight sector following privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Privatisation and open access to the network will transform rail freight from a public sector monopoly into a competitive privately owned industry. Operators will need to improve constantly to stay ahead of their competitors. They will be free from public sector constraints on finance and will be able to benefit directly from the cost and service improvements they make.
  414
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the report by Mercer Management Consultants into the future of the rail freight industry.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The report will contain commercially confidential information. We will be publishing proposals on the future of British Rail's freight businesses after we have studied Mercer's report.

  MV Braer
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his written answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 1, what evidence the marine accident investigation branch has now taken or plans to take in respect of the progress of the steps that were being taken by the owners of the MV Braer at the time of its accident to renew the insurance cover of the vessel.

  Mr. Norris
  The conduct of the inquiry into the Braer accident is a matter for the inspector, and I cannot discuss the evidence which is being obtained in the course of the investigation.

  M66—A664 (Report)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the report of the public inquiry into the M66 junction A664; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Soon.

  Eastgate Cement Works
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government funding has been spent on providing freight facilities at Eastgate cement works since 1975 to help transfer freight from road to rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  There has been no Government assistance towards facilities at Blue Circle's Eastgate cement works. However, a 50 per cent. freight facilities grant under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 was awarded in January 1984 towards the provision of modern wagons, for the movement of cement from Eastgate to northern destinations, and for work at two of the reception depots. The award led to a total grant payment of £728,000. In common with all awards the traffic has continued to be monitored annually and the results have shown that the original grant has been more than justified.

  Passengers Charter
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend the passengers charter so as to require British Rail to offer a full discount on fares on InterCity trains which arrive at their destination one and half hours or more late.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the passengers charter, a full refund is available if the train a passenger planned to catch is cancelled or delayed, and the journey is not made. In addition, British Rail offer vouchers of 20 per cent. or more of the fare paid if a journey, or any leg of it, is delayed by more than an hour. Where delays are particularly serious, the compensation offered can be as much as 100 per cent. I believe that these arrangements provide reasonable recompense to those who are seriously inconvenienced.

  Shipping Routes
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are being made for the submission of evidence to Lord Donaldson's inquiry into possible measures to protect United Kingdom coastlines from pollution by merchant shipping.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Lord Donaldson held a preliminary hearing at Church house, Westminster on 29 January at which he invited written submissions to the inquiry to reach the secretariat by the end of February. Lord Donaldson emphasised that although his Inquiry was set up in reaction to the Braer accident, he will not be investigating that accident. It is already the subject of investigations by the marine accident investigation branch and the Liberian Government. Nor does his inquiry cover the ecological effects of the Braer oil spill, which will be assessed by the ecological steering group appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Lord Donaldson said he would consider any issues within his terms of reference which appear to him to be relevant but he expects to concentrate on finding answers to four questions:
  What incidents could occur in the future which could cause damage to the coastline of the United Kingdom? The inquiry is likely to concentrate on oil pollution but other pollutants will be considered if they appear to be relevant.
  How might such incidents arise?
  What practical steps can be taken to make such incidents much less likely to arise?
  What practical steps can be taken to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects of such an incident if it does arise?

  At this stage, the following topics have been identified as ones which the inquiry expects to consider:
  Navigational issues, including routeing, weather forecasting and position finding.
  Vessel structure, including design, classification by the classification societies and standards and systems of maintenance.
  Vessel operation including who takes crucial decisions, whether the responsibility of ships masters is being eroded, training officers and crews and communications.
  Effectiveness of existing national and international legislation, and possible improvements.
  Lessons from worldwide experience of accidents and near-accidents.
  Insurance and compensation, as they influence decisions taken in potentially dangerous situations.
  Salvage and whether present and traditional arrangements are satisfactory in the context of a hazardous cargo.
  Treatment of pollution, including means of preventing pollutants reaching the coast, treatment of pollutants which do reach the coast and contingency planning.

  Lord Donaldson hopes that a very wide range of individuals and organisations with relevant expertise will send written submissions on these matters to the inquiry. These should be sent to:

  The Secretary to Lord Donaldson's Inquiry

  Room 3/2, Sunley House

  90–93 High Holborn

  LONDON

  WC1V 6LP

  Freight
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will allow private sector freight interests access to British Rail's operational and infrastructure accounts.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail does not produce separate operational and infrastructure accounts at present.

  British Rail (Accounts)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct British Rail to produce accounts separating infrastructure accounting from operations, in accordance with the relevant EC directive.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is already making preparations for the implementation in its accounting year 1993–94 of the provisions of Council directive EEC 91/440 requiring that the accounts for business relating to the provision of transport services and those for business relating to the management of railway infrastructure are kept separate.

  Northern Ireland Railways
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what property, rights or liabilities of Northern Ireland Railways are affected by the Railways Bill.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not the intention that Northern Ireland Railways should be affected in any way by the provisions of the Railways Bill.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what property, rights or liabilities of British Rail relate to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Freeman
  That is a matter for British Rail, but I understand that the board has no significant property, rights or liabilities in Northern Ireland.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. Norris
  A provisional list of regulations that 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.

  Darlington-Bishop Auckland Railway Line
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present apportionment of costs between British Rail sectors for the Darlington to Bishop Auckland railway line; and what will be the change in apportionment of track costs following withdrawal of cement trains later in the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is primarily a matter for British Rail. The route between Darlington and Bishop Auckland is Regional Railways sponsored. In such cases, freight flows are charged only incremental costs and there is not, therefore, likely to be any effect.

  Rail Track Costs
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislation inhibits the public payment of rail track costs for freight operators; and if he will seek to revoke that legislation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The proposed new grant towards track changes would be paid under EC regulation 1893/91,
  417
  subject to the designation of the Secretary of State as the competent authority for that purpose. It would take effect when Railtrack is established and when the new regime for track access and charging commences.

  Forth Bridge
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requests for funding he has received from British Rail for the maintenance of the Forth bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  MVs Derbyshire and Tribulus
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will contact the European Shipping Commissioner and Mr. Alex Underwood of Salmond street, Gateshead to collect further evidence about the MV Derbyshire and the MV Tribulus.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is in frequent contact with the EC Commissioner responsible for shipping matters.

  If anyone has information about the MV Derbyshire which they regard as "new and important" evidence under the terms of section 57 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970, it should be sent to my Department for consideration. Any information about the MV Tribulus accident in 1990 should be sent to the Isle of Man marine administration, with which the ship is registered.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider his decision not to order a full public inquiry into the sinking of MV Derbyshire.

  Mr. Norris
  A formal investigation into the loss of the MV Derbyshire was held between October 1987 and March 1988. I have no plans to order a further public inquiry.

  Passenger Services
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the increase in public service obligation grant that will be required to maintain passenger services at their present level following withdrawal of freight services.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is in the process of preparing its budget for 1993–94, which will provide the basis for determining public service obligation grant for next year. The board's claim for grant will take account of the impact of any expected changes in the pattern of freight flows on the finances of the grant-supported businesses.

  London Transport (Sub-contractors)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to apply the policy of prompt payment of sub-contractors towards new developments by London Transport.

  Mr. Norris
  I am advised that London Transport has a policy of settling payments to all suppliers and contractors strictly in accordance with the terms agreed in its contracts with them. This applies equally to investment in the existing infrastructure and in new development.

  British Rail (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the capital investment at constant prices by British Rail in 1991–92, 1992–93, planned for 1993–94 and 1994–95, in the 1991 autumn statement and now proposed for 1993–94 and 1994–95, excluding spending associated with the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail invested a total of £1,005 million in 1991–92, of which £751 million was spent on the existing railway. British Rail is planning to invest around £1.5 billion in 1992–93, over £1 billion of which is expected to be spent on the existing railway. BR is currently considering plans for future years as part of its 1993–94 budget and 1993 corporate plan.

  InterCity (Timetabled Journeys)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with British Rail concerning the lengthening of timetabled journeys on InterCity arising from track maintenance shortfall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to plan its track maintenance programme within available resources. Prudent timetabling must have regard to the implementation of this programme.

  West London Rail Links
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for improvements to rail transport arrangements between Ealing, Greenford, Hanwell, Perivale, Northolt and Paddington; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Most stations in these areas will benefit from the £750 million upgrading of London Underground's Central line with new trains and signalling or from the £240 million modernisation of Network SouthEast's Thames and Chiltern division with new trains, signalling and station improvements.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects construction work to start on the Jubilee line extension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  That depends upon the settlement of detailed terms for the private sector contribution to the cost of the extension, upon which negotiations with the administrators of Olympia and York continue.

  M1
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects junction 2 on the southbound section of the M1 to reopen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Given reasonable weather conditions, the junction should be reopened before the end of March.

PRIME MINISTER

  Relate
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps are taken to co-ordinate the work of the United Kingdom Departments and Scottish and Welsh Offices concerned with Relate; and if he will make a statement on the grants for Relate for future years.

  The Prime Minister
  Consultations take place within government on this matter as necessary. The Home Office grant to Relate supports marriage guidance in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The grant for 1993–94 of £1,530,000 is 38 per cent. higher than that for 1991–92. It is planned to increase the grant for Relate in 1994–95 by 4 per cent. over the 1993–94 level, subject to public expenditure constraints. The Scottish Office provides a grant to Marriage Counselling Scotland. In 1993–94 this will amount to £87,288, an increase of one and half times compared with 1992–93.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake a comparative study of the employment effects of any tax or consumer subsidy for coal mining on the existing job in nuclear energy supply and in the offshore gas and oil industry.

  The Prime Minister
  The coal review being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering, among other options, methods and costs of reducing the price of British Coal by providing support to the coal industry, for example by subsidy or levy arrangements, and the implications for other energy providers and customers. The effect of any measures on employment in other energy sectors is one of the factors being considered. Evidence on this has been submitted to the review from organisations and individuals within the nuclear, oil and gas industries, and is being given full consideration.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Vehicle-Taking Offences
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the current legislation to introduce stiffer penalties where death has occurred as a result of aggravated vehicle-taking offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  It is not our present intention to change the sentencing provisions of the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992. We have, however, made clear our intention to raise the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous or drink driving to 10 years as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity is available.

  Drug Problems
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new strategies he intends to promote to tackle drug problems in Mansfield and in Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's strategy for tackling drug misuse is aimed at reducing both the supply of and the 420
  demand for drugs. In Nottingham a local drugs prevention team has been set up under the Home Office drugs prevention initiative—DPI—and they will continue to work with the local community in finding effective ways of preventing the spread of drug misuse. As the work of the 20 local teams is evaluated and lessons are learnt from it, we aim to ensure that other areas of the country have the opportunity to benefit from the DOI's experience.

  Nottinghamshire, like other areas, will benefit from other aspects of the Government's drug strategy such as the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill to tighten the law on drug trafficking and money laundering, the assistance we are providing to other countries to help reduce the supply of drugs into this country and the tougher controls which we are introducing on precursor and essential chemicals.

  At the national level, we are committed to bringing forward proposals to ensure that the control of drug misuse is co-ordinated effectively, and the Criminal Justice Bill which we hope to bring before the House shortly, further tightens the law on drug trafficking and money laundering.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new strategies his Department intends to promote to tackle drug problems in Greater London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's strategy for tackling drug misuse is aimed at reducing both the supply of and the demand for drugs. Within the Greater London area, six local drug prevention initiative teams are working in key areas with the local community in developing imaginative strategies specifically designed to tackle local drugs problems. In addition, the London drug policy forum, which receives funding from the Home Office, has initiatives in hand for promoting the co-ordination of local authority effort on drug-related matters.

  At the national level, we are committed to bringing forward proposals to ensure that the control of drug misuse is co-ordinated effectively and the Criminal Justice Bill, which we hope to bring before the House shortly, further tightens the law on drug trafficking and money laundering.

  Offenders (Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to prepare and motivate for employment those who are subject to a court sentence in(a) Mansfield and (b) Nottinghamshire as part of their rehabilitation.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 11 January to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) at column 600. It is the responsibility of the Nottinghamshire probation service to prepare and implement local plans to achieve the objective of ensuring effective provision for offenders under its supervision in relation to training and employment; in partnership with training and enterprise councils, the employment service and others locally.

  In relation to those who receive a custodial sentence, the prison service has been working closely with the employment service to introduce preparation for job search courses and job clubs in prisons to improve the help given to prisoners in preparing for and finding jobs.
  421
  The Home Office funds two national voluntary organisations, Apex Trust and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which provide employment services for offenders and ex-offenders. Part of their programme of work is to assist probation services with employment and training for offenders under their supervision, and to assist the prison service in preparing prisoners for release.

  Sri Lanka (Deportations)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of Sri Lankans deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Sri Lankan citizens removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process

  Year

  Number

  1988

  8

  1989

  12

  1990

  4

  1991

  4

  11992

  5

  1 January to September.

  Race Relations
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 798, if he will give a breakdown by region of the number of posts at present funded or part-funded by section 11 grant.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Section 11 is not administered on a regional basis. The table shows approximate numbers of posts, in full-time equivalent terms, for which payment of grant has been approved to local authorities and other eligible bodies, grouped on a geographical basis:

  Number

  North West

  1,320.6

  North East

  1,587.9

  Wales

  66.8

  West Midlands

  1,545.6

  East Midlands

  701.4

  East Anglia

  131.7

  South West

  89.1

  London

  3,784.5

  South East

  898.5

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 798, how many posts at present funded or part-funded under section 11 grant, are engaged in (a) education in schools, (b) training, (c) advice work and (d) economic development.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available in the form requested. Approval for funding has been given for some 8,876 posts, in full-time equivalent terms, in education. A large proportion of these posts are school-based. In addition, approximately 1,250 posts, in full-time equivalent terms, have been approved in other service areas, including social services, housing employment, training and enterprise.
  422
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many posts in(a) Hampshire county council and (b) district councils in Hampshire are currently funded under section 11; what is the total cost of these posts; and if he will list the number and purpose of each post funded in each authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Numbers of posts approved for funding from 1 April 1992 are given in the table, with current full-year potential grant cost:

  Local authority

  Total No. of full-time equivalent posts

  Total grant cost £

  Hampshire county council

  52.9

  681,698

  Southampton city council

  1.62

  19,550

  Overall total:

  54.52

  701,248

  Hampshire county council's posts provide a school and college-based English language development service. Southampton city council's posts are concerned with support services for Asian women experiencing domestic violence.

  European Election Boundaries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 11 January,Official Report, column 595, when he proposes to bring forward legislation on the European election boundaries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government's proposals on the basis for this legislation will be brought forward shortly. The legislation itself will be introduced at the appropriate time bearing in mind the dates of future elections.

  Prisoners (Media Interviews)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many media interviews with convicted prisoners have been published in the last two years; and what are the criteria for allowing such interviews.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Applications to interview prisoners are generally processed through the Home Office public relations branch. Each application is dealt with on its merits and a decision to proceed is made by the public relations branch in conjunction with prison governors, senior officials and, where necessary, Ministers.

  At the outset, the journalist involved would need to outline fully his or her request and justify the need to interview prisoners.

  If the interview is allowed to proceed for research or private purposes, an undertaking would need to be given that none of the material obtained would be used in any publication or broadcast.

  Statistical information about the number of media interviews with convicted prisoners, published or broadcast during the last two years, is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Relate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase, in real terms, the grant to the charity Relate.
  423
  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ms. Walley) on 4 February at columns 288–89.

  Bingo Clubs
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what way and for what reason he intends that licensed bingo clubs should be regulated differently from the proposed national lottery.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The arrangements for the regulation of licensed bingo clubs are set out in the Gaming Act 1968 and the Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985. The proposed regulatory framework for the national lottery is set out in the National Lottery Etc. Bill currently before the House. The differences between the two sets of controls reflect the different nature of the activities involved.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used in England and Wales 1987

  Force

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  20

  19

  31

  11

  81

  Bedfordshire

  31

  40

  19

  13

  103

  Cambridgeshire

  8

  15

  17

  19

  59

  Cheshire

  17

  19

  14

  12

  62

  Cleveland

  8

  11

  6

  6

  31

  Cumbria

  7

  18

  31

  11

  67

  Derbyshire

  42

  29

  32

  21

  124

  Devon and Cornwall

  30

  41

  36

  19

  126

  Dorset

  1

  4

  3

  5

  13

  Durham

  15

  22

  29

  21

  87

  Essex

  73

  89

  74

  62

  298

  Gloucestershire

  1

  6

  6

  1

  14

  Greater Manchester

  118

  111

  131

  122

  482

  Hampshire

  48

  65

  49

  44

  206

  Hertfordshire

  18

  42

  31

  29

  120

  Humberside

  81

  110

  78

  83

  252

  Kent

  50

  63

  58

  45

  216

  Lancashire

  29

  25

  14

  17

  85

  Leicestershire

  12

  20

  19

  29

  80

  Lincolnshire

  29

  26

  16

  23

  94

  London, City of

  10

  5

  13

  2

  30

  Merseyside

  87

  124

  133

  84

  428

  Metropolitan Police

  561

  555

  589

  575

  2,280

  Norfolk

  17

  17

  10

  15

  59

  Northamptonshire

  35

  30

  30

  35

  130

  Northumbria

  104

  105

  110

  68

  387

  North Yorkshire

  23

  15

  19

  11

  68

  Nottinghamshire

  47

  104

  64

  68

  283

  South Yorkshire

  88

  90

  63

  51

  292

  Staffordshire

  30

  48

  36

  26

  140

  Suffolk

  16

  24

  29

  24

  93

  Surrey

  20

  17

  23

  13

  73

  Sussex

  21

  20

  33

  18

  92

  Thames Valley

  55

  55

  100

  33

  243

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been instituted for illegal telephone tapping since the coming into force of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Interception of Communications Act 1985 came into force on 10 April 1986. From 1986 to 1991 there have been six prosecutions under section 1(1) of the Act. Information collected centrally does not identify whether the communications were by post or by means of public telecommunication systems.

  Firearms
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of offences recorded by each police force in England and Wales in which firearms are reported to have been used in each quarter of 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  The tables give the information requested. Statistics for 1992 are not yet available.
  425

  Force

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  Warwickshire

  18

  16

  18

  14

  66

  West Mercia

  23

  33

  29

  17

  102

  West Midlands

  174

  153

  150

  131

  608

  West Yorkshire

  106

  139

  130

  106

  481

  Wiltshire

  15

  19

  19

  8

  61

  Dyfed Powys

  12

  7

  12

  11

  42

  Gwent

  10

  8

  4

  7

  29

  North Wales

  23

  46

  16

  31

  116

  South Wales

  63

  29

  76

  31

  199

  TOTAL

  2,196

  2,434

  2,400

  1,972

  9,002

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used in England and Wales 1988

  Force

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  23

  15

  20

  23

  81

  Bedfordshire

  23

  12

  21

  15

  71

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  27

  21

  10

  80

  Cheshire

  20

  29

  23

  9

  81

  Cleveland

  18

  6

  16

  14

  54

  Cumbria

  10

  9

  20

  11

  50

  Derbyshire

  30

  33

  36

  21

  120

  Devon and Cornwall

  31

  43

  34

  20

  128

  Dorset

  5

  2

  4

  2

  13

  Durham

  5

  12

  8

  12

  37

  Essex

  61

  56

  54

  43

  214

  Gloucestershire

  7

  4

  2

  8

  21

  Greater Manchester

  128

  113

  112

  88

  441

  Hampshire

  34

  50

  46

  40

  170

  Hertfordshire

  27

  41

  27

  29

  124

  Humberside

  79

  97

  91

  69

  336

  Kent

  28

  64

  49

  56

  197

  Lancashire

  18

  42

  25

  22

  107

  Leicestershire

  27

  28

  21

  18

  94

  Lincolnshire

  22

  27

  19

  19

  87

  London, City of

  10

  1

  9

  3

  23

  Merseyside

  120

  95

  87

  91

  393

  Metropolitan Police

  530

  619

  628

  597

  2,374

  Norfolk

  22

  20

  27

  21

  90

  Northamptonshire

  28

  28

  31

  24

  111

  Northumbria

  75

  72

  90

  82

  319

  North Yorkshire

  14

  23

  10

  22

  69

  Nottinghamshire

  64

  65

  89

  42

  260

  South Yorkshire

  78

  52

  67

  56

  253

  Staffordshire

  35

  44

  41

  27

  147

  Suffolk

  17

  31

  20

  29

  97

  Surrey

  13

  38

  16

  24

  91

  Sussex

  21

  23

  42

  17

  103

  Thames Valley

  63

  50

  47

  42

  202

  Warwickshire

  11

  16

  21

  20

  68

  West Mercia

  17

  17

  15

  21

  70

  West Midlands

  145

  136

  133

  122

  536

  West Yorkshire

  92

  123

  112

  88

  415

  Wiltshire

  12

  9

  7

  10

  38

  Dyfed Powys

  8

  11

  9

  11

  39

  Gwent

  18

  13

  6

  8

  45

  426 427

  Force

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  North Wales

  26

  32

  20

  23

  101

  South Wales

  45

  47

  34

  48

  174

  TOTAL

  2,082

  2,275

  2,210

  1,957

  8,524

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used in England and Wales 1989

  Force

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  38

  29

  15

  25

  107

  Bedfordshire

  13

  14

  7

  17

  51

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  30

  24

  21

  95

  Cheshire

  21

  18

  30

  12

  81

  Cleveland

  23

  35

  18

  23

  99

  Cumbria

  12

  18

  13

  5

  48

  Derbyshire

  34

  47

  28

  32

  141

  Devon and Cornwall

  32

  38

  37

  31

  138

  Dorset

  5

  1

  5

  4

  15

  Durham

  26

  21

  18

  14

  79

  Essex

  73

  58

  53

  42

  226

  Gloucestershire

  1

  2

  6

  —

  9

  Greater Manchester

  135

  149

  119

  130

  533

  Hampshire

  71

  35

  60

  48

  214

  Hertfordshire

  35

  31

  20

  22

  108

  Humberside

  89

  115

  120

  88

  412

  Kent

  49

  54

  75

  71

  249

  Lancashire

  14

  11

  10

  12

  47

  Leicestershire

  36

  38

  30

  36

  140

  Lincolnshire

  18

  18

  19

  23

  78

  London, City of

  7

  11

  6

  5

  29

  Merseyside

  91

  106

  123

  86

  406

  Metropolitan Police

  594

  658

  605

  783

  2,640

  Norfolk

  26

  31

  31

  22

  110

  Northamptonshire

  24

  26

  36

  23

  109

  Northumbria

  94

  134

  102

  142

  472

  North Yorkshire

  22

  24

  21

  14

  81

  Nottinghamshire

  69

  84

  74

  57

  284

  South Yorkshire

  81

  88

  85

  79

  333

  Staffordshire

  29

  26

  27

  7

  89

  Suffolk

  21

  13

  26

  18

  78

  Surrey

  19

  22

  18

  23

  82

  Sussex

  44

  38

  46

  37

  165

  Thames Valley

  41

  55

  69

  79

  244

  Warwickshire

  17

  28

  27

  14

  86

  West Mercia

  33

  46

  28

  16

  123

  West Midlands

  114

  168

  142

  151

  575

  West Yorkshire

  92

  89

  102

  95

  378

  Wiltshire

  10

  12

  15

  1

  38

  Dyfed Powys

  9

  5

  17

  7

  38

  Gwent

  4

  18

  6

  12

  40

  North Wales

  24

  29

  13

  19

  85

  South Wales

  38

  33

  39

  37

  147

  TOTAL

  2,248

  2,506

  2,365

  2,383

  9,502

  428 429

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used in England and Wales 1990

  Force

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  45

  45

  35

  38

  163

  Bedfordshire

  14

  10

  19

  23

  66

  Cambridgeshire

  31

  38

  29

  36

  134

  Cheshire

  23

  43

  25

  16

  107

  Cleveland

  37

  39

  31

  28

  135

  Cumbria

  14

  28

  9

  10

  61

  Derbyshire

  35

  71

  54

  25

  185

  Devon and Cornwall

  29

  20

  21

  25

  95

  Dorset

  9

  8

  4

  3

  24

  Durham

  18

  12

  11

  20

  61

  Essex

  62

  91

  71

  68

  292

  Gloucestershire

  2

  2

  2

  —

  6

  Greater Manchester

  140

  131

  120

  166

  557

  Hampshire

  36

  70

  63

  63

  232

  Hertfordshire

  22

  25

  19

  29

  95

  Humberside

  118

  141

  115

  88

  462

  Kent

  59

  73

  65

  63

  260

  Lancashire

  32

  47

  25

  42

  146

  Leicestershire

  39

  34

  38

  40

  151

  Lincolnshire

  17

  22

  13

  14

  66

  London, City of

  8

  6

  6

  5

  25

  Merseyside

  67

  96

  109

  105

  377

  Metropolitan Police

  691

  666

  704

  678

  2,739

  Norfolk

  23

  33

  32

  31

  119

  Northamptonshire

  42

  22

  31

  17

  112

  Northumbria

  123

  115

  97

  112

  447

  North Yorkshire

  24

  22

  16

  18

  80

  Nottinghamshire

  76

  87

  57

  62

  282

  South Yorkshire

  81

  88

  85

  71

  325

  Staffordshire

  40

  51

  34

  37

  162

  Suffolk

  26

  25

  25

  32

  108

  Surrey

  24

  27

  31

  26

  108

  Sussex

  43

  63

  44

  43

  193

  Thames Valley

  71

  72

  90

  77

  310

  Warwickshire

  29

  37

  26

  30

  122

  West Mercia

  28

  27

  16

  11

  82

  West Midlands

  153

  137

  124

  169

  583

  West Yorkshire

  145

  131

  108

  118

  502

  Wiltshire

  5

  4

  2

  1

  12

  Dyfed Powys

  10

  22

  18

  5

  55

  Gwent

  10

  22

  10

  11

  53

  North Wales

  20

  32

  20

  14

  86

  South Wales

  39

  57

  65

  32

  193

  TOTAL

  2,560

  2,792

  2,519

  2,502

  10,373

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used in England and Wales 1991

  Force

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  46

  17

  39

  21

  123

  Bedfordshire

  28

  26

  21

  34

  109

  Cambridgeshire

  39

  38

  53

  41

  171

  Cheshire

  13

  32

  28

  27

  100

  Cleveland

  41

  39

  32

  28

  140

  430 431

  Force

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  Cumbria

  13

  20

  17

  12

  62

  Derbyshire

  45

  34

  63

  52

  194

  Devon and Cornwall

  25

  18

  22

  19

  84

  Dorset

  11

  14

  9

  4

  38

  Durham

  14

  36

  31

  24

  105

  Essex

  75

  54

  63

  85

  277

  Gloucestershire

  4

  11

  9

  11

  35

  Greater Manchester

  173

  155

  169

  210

  707

  Hampshire

  68

  77

  68

  70

  283

  Hertfordshire

  31

  34

  18

  18

  101

  Humberside

  128

  136

  136

  114

  514

  Kent

  72

  77

  70

  86

  305

  Lancashire

  64

  36

  70

  36

  206

  Leicestershire

  28

  58

  44

  32

  162

  Lincolnshire

  10

  19

  23

  15

  67

  London, City of

  3

  4

  4

  4

  15

  Merseyside

  86

  101

  118

  93

  398

  Metropolitan Police

  834

  959

  929

  969

  3,691

  Norfolk

  33

  22

  40

  21

  116

  Northamptonshire

  17

  28

  33

  31

  109

  Northumbria

  132

  107

  100

  109

  448

  North Yorkshire

  20

  30

  24

  27

  101

  Nottinghamshire

  57

  109

  105

  101

  372

  South Yorkshire

  51

  84

  84

  86

  305

  Staffordshire

  31

  50

  44

  51

  176

  Suffolk

  21

  24

  24

  22

  91

  Surrey

  26

  29

  38

  27

  120

  Sussex

  42

  44

  43

  55

  184

  Thames Valley

  85

  67

  63

  86

  301

  Warwickshire

  20

  29

  29

  36

  114

  West Mercia

  18

  25

  13

  20

  76

  West Midlands

  148

  168

  203

  178

  697

  West Yorkshire

  104

  173

  145

  152

  574

  Wiltshire

  1

  —

  2

  2

  5

  Dyfed Powys

  23

  16

  14

  9

  62

  Gwent

  11

  13

  17

  4

  45

  North Wales

  43

  36

  33

  39

  151

  South Wales

  47

  55

  44

  49

  195

  TOTAL

  2,781

  3,104

  3,134

  3,110

  12,129

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all homicides since January 1987 by the police in England and Wales in which firearms are reported to have been used, including the date of recording, the names of individuals killed, the police

  Offences Currently Recorded as Homicide where Method of Killing was by Shooting—England and Wales 1987–91

  Police Force and Outcome1

  Total

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total

  Total

  268

  78

  42

  38

  58

  52

  Convicted

  134

  43

  23

  17

  35

  16

  Charged

  29

  4

  2

  4

  6

  13

  No Charge

  105

  31

  17

  17

  17

  23

  MPD

  Total

  78

  22

  12

  9

  23

  12

  Convicted

  37

  13

  6

  5

  12

  1

  Charged

  17

  3

  2

  2

  4

  6

  432
  force area for each incident, and whether in each case a person or persons have been (a) charged and (b) convicted in respect of each incident.

  Mr. Jack
  The table gives a summary of the information sought. Similar information for 1992 is not yet available.

  I will write to the hon. Member with the individual details of each case.
  433

  Police Force and Outcome1

  Total

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  No Charge

  24

  6

  4

  2

  7

  5

  Cumbria

  Total

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Convicted

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  Total

  6

  1

  2

  0

  1

  2

  Convicted

  6

  1

  2

  0

  1

  2

  Merseyside

  Total

  5

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Convicted

  4

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  No Charge

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  Total

  16

  2

  3

  5

  1

  5

  Convicted

  7

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Charged

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  No Charge

  6

  0

  1

  3

  0

  2

  Cheshire

  Total

  4

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  Convicted

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  No Charge

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Northumbria

  Total

  7

  2

  0

  1

  4

  0

  Convicted

  5

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Charged

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Durham

  Total

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Convicted

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  No Charge

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  Total

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Convicted

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  No Charge

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  West Yorkshire

  Total

  6

  2

  0

  1

  3

  0

  Convicted

  4

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  No Charge

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  South Yorkshire

  Total

  3

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Convicted

  3

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Humberside

  Total

  4

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Convicted

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  No Charge

  3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  Cleveland

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Convicted

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  West Midlands

  Total

  7

  2

  3

  0

  2

  0

  Convicted

  3

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  No Charge

  4

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Staffordshire

  Total

  3

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Convicted

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  No Charge

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  West Mercia

  Total

  5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Convicted

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  No Charge

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Warwickshire

  Total

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Convicted

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  No charge

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  434 435

  Police Force and Outcome1

  Total

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Derbyshire

  Total

  3

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Convicted

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  No charge

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  Total

  6

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  Convicted

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  No charge

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Lincolnshire

  Total

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Convicted

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  No charge

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  Total

  4

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Convicted

  3

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  No charge

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Convicted

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  Total

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Convicted

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  No charge

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  Total

  6

  3

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Convicted

  5

  3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  No charge

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  Total

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Charged

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Hertfordshire

  Total

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Convicted

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  Total

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Convicted

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Thames Valley

  Total

  21

  16

  2

  1

  0

  2

  Convicted

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  No charge

  19

  16

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  Total

  4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Convicted

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Charged

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  No charge

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Surrey

  Total

  4

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Charged

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  No charge

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Kent

  Total

  11

  3

  1

  2

  3

  2

  Convicted

  7

  2

  1

  1

  3

  0

  Charged

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  No charge

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Sussex

  Total

  6

  1

  1

  2

  0

  2

  Convicted

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Charged

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  No charge

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  Total

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Convicted

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  436 437

  Police Force and Outcome1

  Total

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  No charge

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Avon and Somerset

  Total

  5

  2

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Convicted

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  No charge

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  Total

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Convicted

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  No charge

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  Total

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  No charge

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Dorset

  Total

  3

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Convicted

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  No charge

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  North Wales

  Total

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Convicted

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  No charge

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  Total

  5

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Convicted

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  No charge

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  South Wales

  Total

  5

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Convicted

  5

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  Total

  7

  0

  0

  3

  3

  1

  Convicted

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  No charge

  4

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1 CONVICTED refers to a case decided at court to be homicide and suspect found guilty.

  CHARGED refers to a case where a suspect was charged with homicide but no conviction was recorded, e.g. the case is still pending or the suspect was acquitted and a further suspect is being sought.

  NO CHARGE refers to a case where no suspect has been charged with homicide. This could be because it was not possible to charge a potential suspect (e.g. where suspect died before charge could be brought) or where the case remains unsolved.

  Canonbury Academy (Seminar)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the cost of the policing and security measures undertaken in relation to the seminar at the Canonbury academy, Canonbury place, London N1, on 27 January 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not the Government's policy to disclose details of the resources devoted to the subject of anti-terrorism.

  Devon and Cornwall Police
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last tranche of recruits began service with the Devon and Cornwall constabulary; when the next tranche of recruits is expected to begin service with the constabulary; and how many police officers are expected to retire between these two dates.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The last tranche of recruits began service on 7 December 1992. The next tranche is expected to begin service in either May or June this year. The force anticipates 25 retirements between December 1992 and May 1993.

  Released Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy that facilities and support for those released from prison after a delayed appeal or miscarriage of justice will(a) be generous and immediate and (b) be arranged in a way which leaves the ex-prisoner free to accept or reject what is on offer;

  (2) if he will publish standard arrangements to meet the needs of people released from prison after a delay of appeal or miscarriage of justice.

  Mr. Jack
  I intend that it should remain the case that there should be no compulsion on any person who is released from prison following the quashing of a conviction to accept support, financial or otherwise, from any official body. I am not at present convinced that it would be either practicable or right to attempt to establish comprehensive arrangements on a contingency basis to deal with a category of case that I hope in future will diminish in frequency.

  But I believe that compensation should be available in appropriate cases. That is the case now. Thus, under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, my right hon. and learned Friend may authorise payment of compensation in the case of a convicted quashed on an appeal out

  439
  of time where a new or newly discovered fact has arisen which shows beyond reasonable doubt that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Moreover, he may also offer ex-gratia payments from public funds in other exceptional circumstances; the criteria which he considers in such cases were set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) on 29 November 1985, Official Report, columns 689–90.

  A successful appellant is under no obligation to apply for compensation or to accept any offer of compensation. The amount of any award of compensation is determined according to the assessment or advice of an independent assessor who applies principles analogous to those governing the assessment of damages for civil wrongs. Subject to the agreement of the assessor, an interim payment may be made.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a study of former hostages and the problems they have experienced as part of research to determine the facilities needed for ex-prisoners released from gaol after a delayed appeal or miscarriage of justice.

  Mr. Jack
  I have no present plans to do so. Our current research programme does. not enable us to undertake the study suggested.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake an investigation into the experience of prisoners released from goal after a delayed appeal of miscarriage of justice and publish a report identifying the common problems they have experienced.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.

  Unit Fines
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hon. Members have written to him about the new unit fines system.

  Refuals1 of after-entry applications to vary leave, solely on grounds of lack of accommodation, or maintenance or both accommodation and maintenance, by husbands, wives and fiancés2, 1986 to 1992 (January to September)3.

  United Kingdom

  Number of Persons

  Category of Refusal

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19923

  Spouses

  Refusals on grounds of accommodation4

  Husbands

  13

  9

  5

  8

  8

  1

  3

  Wives

  1

  —

  2

  4

  1

  8

  2

  Refusals on grounds of maintenance4

  Husbands

  24

  8

  8

  2

  3

  3

  1

  Wives

  6

  4

  4

  1

  3

  3

  6

  Refusals on grounds of maintenance and accommodation

  Husbands

  31

  13

  12

  5

  3

  5

  3

  Wives

  8

  7

  4

  1

  1

  3

  3

  Refusal of settlement5

  Husbands

  17

  14

  20

  24

  30

  37

  23

  Wives

  —

  —

  2

  14

  33

  48

  Fiances

  Refusals on grounds of maintenance and accommodation

  Male fiancés

  1

  1

  3

  1

  3

  —

  1

  Female fiancés

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  440
  Mr. Jack
  The provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 relating to unit fines were implemented on 1 October 1992. Since that date some 50 right hon. and hon. Members have written about the sentencing provisions of the Act. Thirty seven of these letters were concerned either in whole or in part with the unit fines system.

  Travel Documents
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the fee for issuing and renewing all forms of Home Office travel documents.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is in accordance with our normal practice and within the provisions of the 1951 and 1954 conventions to charge a fee similar to that for a standard British passport. The fee for a passport was recently increased to £18 and my right hon. and learned Friend has therefore decided that, with effect from today, the fee for issuing and renewing Home Office travel documents should be £18.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were refused entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom or to vary their leave once in the United Kingdom on grounds of(a) lack of maintenance, (b) lack of maintenance and accommodation and (c) lack of accommodation, in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The available information is given in the tables for spouses, fiances and children refused entry clearance or variation of leave on the grounds of lack of accommodation, or of maintenance or of both accommodation and maintenance. For entry clearance refusals, information is available only for the Indian sub-continent.
  441
  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Information on refusals of dependent children is not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  3 January-September—Information for the fourth quarter of 1992 is not yet available.

  4 Refusals solely on the grounds of maintenance or accommodation, excluding those refusals made on the grounds of primary purpose and accommodation or maintenance.

  5 Refusal of settlement after probationary year on general considerations, including recourse to public funds.

  Refusals1 of entry clearance, solely on grounds of lack of accommodation, or maintenance or both accommodation and maintenance, for husbands, wives, fiances and children from the Indian sub-Continent, 1986–1992 (January-September)2.

  Indian sub-Continent

  Number of persons

  Category of refusal

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  21992

  Accommodation

  Husbands

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  7

  8

  Wives

  —

  4

  5

  10

  15

  17

  19

  Male fiancés

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Female fiancées

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  1

  Children

  —

  5

  —

  1

  24

  16

  14

  Maintenance

  Husbands

  —

  1

  1

  6

  8

  11

  31

  Wives

  —

  1

  —

  6

  33

  34

  70

  Male fiancés

  3

  —

  3

  —

  3

  1

  2

  Female fiancées

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  Children

  1

  2

  3

  6

  31

  10

  24

  Maintenance and accommodation

  Husbands

  1

  8

  12

  17

  44

  48

  71

  Wives

  9

  13

  12

  97

  164

  122

  128

  Male fiancés

  —

  1

  5

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Female fiancées

  1

  1

  3

  4

  6

  17

  6

  Children

  7

  8

  10

  152

  326

  122

  61

  1 Excluding dependents.

  2 January to September—Information for the fourth quarter of 1992 is not yet available.

  Prison Education
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department began consideration of the effect of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the contracting out of prison education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 8 December, Official Report, columns 555–56. When the decision was made to invite competitive tenders for the future provision of education in prisons, the view was taken that the tendering of an already contracted-out service would not necessarily involve the transfer of an undertaking. This view was confirmed in legal advice which the Prison Service obtained.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans he has made for the timetable for contracting out prison education if the original planned start date becomes impossible.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to her questions on 27 January at columns 715–16. Where the existing providers agree, the present arrangements will continue until 31 August 1993. Where the existing providers do not, contracts will be awarded to take effect from 1 April 1993 under the recent competitive tender.

  Departmental Contracts
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements will be made for monitoring any of his Department's functions which are contracted out.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: In the case of a contracted out prison monitoring is undertaken by a controller. In the case of contracted-out prisoner escort arrangements, monitoring is undertaken by a prison escort monitor. These posts can be held only by Crown servants, appointed by the Secretary of State under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  In the case of other functions, where an external contractor is appointed, an in-house contract control manager will have the responsibility of ensuring that the benefits of contracting out are delivered.

  D Notices
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances D notices are issued to the press in relation to seminars and conferences taking place on private property, organised by private companies, organisations or individuals; and what difference there is in applicability between national newspapers and local newspapers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not the practice to issue D notices in respect of specific seminars or conferences. They are provided by the

  443
  Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee to editors and publishers as general guidance on matters which engage aspects of national security. Editors are invited to consult the D notice secretary if they are in doubt, about their particular application.

  Any advice given by the secretary on issues of national security is equally applicable to national and local newspapers.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Money Supply
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what weight he gives to his monitoring range of 4 to 8 per cent. for broad money; and what are the consequences for the economy for a fall in the annual growth in M4 to below the bottom of the range.

  Mr. Nelson
  Broad money—M4—is one of the indicators taken into account in conducting monetary policy and setting interest rates. The monitoring range has been set at a level which is believed to be consistent with progress towards the Government's inflation objectives. The recent fall in M4's 12-month growth rate to below the lower limit on the monitoring range was one of the reasons for the decision to cut interest rates on 26 January.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average growth in consumption and average growth in gross domestic product for each year since 1979 and the cumulative percentage change over the same period.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested for the years 1987 to 1991 can be derived from table 3 of "Economic Trends", January 1993 edition No. 471, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Figures for earlier years are available in "Economic Trends Annual Supplement", 1993 edition. They are also held on the Central Statistical Office database which can be accessed by the Library. The CSO database identifiers are:

  Identity

  Consumers' expenditure

  CCBH

  Gross domestic product

  CAOP

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average consumption per capita and average gross domestic product per capita for each year since 1979 together with the cumulative percentage change for both over the period.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested for the years 1988 to 1991 can be found in table 8 of "Economic Trends", January 1993 edition No. 471, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Figures for earlier years are held on the CSO database which can be accessed by the Library. The CSO database identifiers are:

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  Consumers' expenditure per capita

  FBCC

  FBCF

  Gross domestic product per capita

  CAQB

  CAQC

  Bank Charges
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has had from the business community in relation to bank charges.

  Mr. Nelson
  Between 1 November 1992 and 3 February 1993 the Treasury has received some 780 complaints from small businesses about their banks. Thirty-five of these were solely about bank charges and a significant number of the rest included references to charges, but an exact figure cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

  In addition, I recently met representatives of the Bank Action Group to discuss their complaints, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has recently seen the chief executive of the Forum of Private Business at which relations with banks were discussed.

  Wealth Distribution
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the distribution of wealth implied by the 1989 Inland Revenue study of 35 per cent. of the adult population.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates for the distribution of personal wealth, including provisional figures for 1989 and 1990, are published in section 11 of the 1992 edition of "Inland Revenue Statistics".

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The firms of consultants used by Treasury for work relating to the market testing programme since November 1991, are Touche Ross, Prime Strategy Consultants and Ernst and Young. The spend to date has been £26,000 and there is a further committed expenditure of £55,000.

  Banking and Insurance Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for further regulation of the banking and insurance industry.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already outlined to the House—Official Report, 22 October 1992, column 576—the steps that we intend to take to implement the recommendations in the Bingham report which bear on the regulation of banking.

  The House has recently passed legislation to implement into United Kingdom law the second banking co-ordination directive, which along with the second directive on consolidated supervision, the solvency ratio directive and the own funds directive, came fully into force on 1 January 1993. Further measures will be taken later in the year to implement the large exposures directive, which comes into force on 1 January 1994, and any of the other directives currently under discussion which may he adopted for implementation by that date.

  The regulation of insurance is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He will

  445
  shortly be laying before the House regulations to strengthen the appointed actuary system. Later this year he will be bringing forward for approval regulations to implement the third non-life and life insurance directives and the insurance accounts directive.

  International Monetary Fund
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to visit the IMF to discuss structural adjustments.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend will be attending the next meetings of the interim committee of the IMF on 30 April 1993 and the joint development committee of the World bank and the IMF on 1 May. I expect aspects of structural adjustments to feature in the discussions.

  Auditors
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to bring forward proposals for imposing a duty on auditors to report suspicion of fraud or other criminal activity to the proper authorities.

  Mr. Nelson
  We will be publishing shortly a consultation document which will include draft regulations imposing a statutory duty on auditors to report to the Bank of England any information which they believe to be relevant to their client bank's fulfilment of the authorisation criteria in the Banking Act.

  The consultation document will also include draft regulations extending a similar duty to report to the relevant regulatory authority, for auditors of building societies, friendly societies, companies regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986 and, at the initiative of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, companies regulated under the Insurance Companies Act 1982.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide an estimate based on the most recent census of production of the added value per head in British manufacturing industry (i) as a whole and (ii) in plants in the United Kingdom of enterprises based in(a) other EC countries, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan and (d) the United Kingdom;

  Excise duty on spirits (£ per litre of pure alcohol)

  Estimated whisky/whiskey duty in real terms

  Date of Budget

  Rate

  Rate in terms

  £ millions

  1978 11 April1

  10.44

  28.95

  1977–78

  1,278

  1979 12 June1

  10.44

  25.62

  1978–79

  1,495

  1980 27 March

  11.87

  25.39

  1979–80

  1,303

  1981 11 March

  13.60

  25.82

  1980–81

  1,131

  1982 10 March

  14.47

  24.91

  1981–82

  1,095

  1983 16 March

  15.19

  24.99

  1982–83

  2784

  1984 14 March

  15.48

  24.18

  1983–84

  21,284

  1985 20 March

  15.77

  23.23

  1984–85

  882

  1986 18 March1

  15.77

  22.29

  1985–86

  1,007

  1987 17 March1

  15.77

  21.43

  1986–87

  911

  1988 15 March1

  15.77

  20.71

  1987–88

  917

  1989 14 March1

  15.77

  19.20

  1988–89

  844

  1990 20 March

  17.35

  19.54

  1989–90

  747

  1991 19 March

  18.96

  19.72

  1990–91

  761

  1992 10 March

  19.81

  19.81

  1991–92

  730

  446
  (2) if he will provide an estimate based on the most recent census of production of added value relative to final sale value in British manufacturing industry (i) as a whole and (ii) in plants in the United Kingdom of enterprises based in (a) other EC countries, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan and (d) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  The required information is available from "Business Monitor PA 1002, Report on the Census of Production, Summary Volume". Tables 1 and 2 give information for all public and private sector enterprises operating in the United Kingdom. Table 18 gives further information on private enterprises in the United Kingdom controlled from overseas. Copies of this volume for years up to 1990 are available from the Library of the House.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the practice of the Inland Revenue in accepting payments in instalments for arrears of tax for small businesses and individual traders; and what plans he has to review this practice to take account of the current economic climate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The first duty of the Inland Revenue is to collect tax that is properly due and in carrying out this duty it aims to treat all taxpayers fairly and impartially. The Revenue recognises that businesses may face temporary financial difficulties and in such circumstances the collector should be contacted at the earliest opportunity to discuss how the difficulty may be resolved. All reasonable offers of payments, including payment by instalments, are considered. This practice will continue to operate.

  Whiskey and Whisky
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 255–56, if he will list the dates and the changes in (a) duty rate and (b) total duty, in real terms, received on whisky and whiskey in each of the last 15 years; and what assessment he has made of the main reasons for the domestic volume changes that underlay the fluctuations in estimated duty on whiskey and whisky in the years from 1981–82 to 1985–86.

  Sir John Cope
  The information is as follows:
  447
  1 No change in duty rate.

  2 Receipts in 1982–83 and 1983–84 were substantially affected by the introduction of duty deferment on wines and spirits in February 1983. If duty deferment had not been available, receipts of duty from spirits in 1982–83 would have been higher than those recorded and conversely lower than recorded in 1983–84.

  The real terms figures have been calculated using the RPI. Estimated whisky duty is at 1991–92 prices. Duty rates are at March 1992 prices and use the RPI applying in the Budget month where as December RPI is normally used or revalorisation.

  For information on the percentage duty changes I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 20 January 1993, at column 256.

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage and amount of the equities bought on the stock exchange are bought by(a) pension funds, (b) insurance companies and (c) each other type of financial institution; and how these percentages have changed since 1979;

  (2) what percentage of shares bought on the stock exchange is bought by (a) financial institutions and (b) individuals.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: The amount and percentage of ordinary shares, in terms of market capitalisation, owned in United Kingdom companies listed on the London stock exchange, excluding issues on the unlisted securities market, as at 1 January 1992 are set out in the table.

  £ billion

  Percentage

  Pension funds

  165.0

  31.1

  Insurance companies

  109.7

  20.7

  Banks

  1.1

  0.2

  Unit trusts

  30.4

  5.7

  Other financial institutions

  14.5

  2.8

  All financial institutions

  320.7

  60.5

  Individuals

  104.8

  19.8

  Unincorporated businesses

  1.3

  0.2

  Non-profit making bodies

  11.4

  2.2

  Public sector

  6.8

  1.2

  Industrial and commercial companies

  17.5

  3.3

  Overseas

  67.8

  12.8

  All sectors

  530.2

  100.0

  Note: Components may not add to totals due to rounding.

  Other financial institutions comprise: building societies, unit trusts, securities dealers and other miscellaneous financial institutions. They also include SEPON—the stock exchange account into which shares are placed while in transit between buyer and seller—in 1992, amounting to around £3.1 billion and around 0.6 per cent.

  Comparable figures for 1979 are not available, but percentages for 1981, the nearest available year, are as follows:

  per cent.

  Pension Funds

  26.7

  Insurance Companies

  20.5

  Banks

  0.3

  Unit Trusts

  3.6

  Other Financial institutions

  6.8

  ALL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

  57.9

  Individuals

  28.2

  Unincorporated businesses

  448

  per cent.

  Non-profit making bodies

  2.2

  Public Sector

  3.0

  Industrial and commercial companies

  5.1

  Overseas

  3.6

  TOTAL

  100.0

  Further details and information for earlier periods is available in an article "The 1992 Share Register Survey", published in "Economic Trends" No. 466 which is available from the Library.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will update the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 4 November 1992,Official Report, columns 270–74; and if he will state the political affiliation of the appointees where known.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: There have been only two changes to the list of appointees to the public bodies for which the Chancellor is responsible. Dr. C. Swan, Garter King of Arms, has been appointed as a member of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee. Mr. N. Fox Bassett, lawyer, has been appointed to the Building Societies Commission.

  No details are held of the political affiliation of appointees to any of the public bodies for which the Chancellor is responsible.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Pit Closures
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from mining equipment manufacturing companies about the effects on export and domestic business of a programme of pit closures.

  Mr. Eggar
  Representations have been made both by a number of individual companies and their trade associations. The Government have made it clear that they will give every proper assistance to the industry, including help to build upon their impressive export record.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I intend to meet representatives from the industry again shortly.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cost of the consultants' reports commissioned as part of the review of the coal industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  The estimated total cost to the Department of consultants commissioned to carry out studies and advise in respect of the coal review is £1.4 million.

  Electricity
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to(a) the competition and (b) other implications of the granting of

  449
  permission to individual large users of electricity to buy electricity directly from a generator at a cheaper rate than other industrial users; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is in dialogue with larger users of electricity about their electricity prices. We have noted the recommendations by the Trade and Industry Select Committee that large users with unvarying demand should be able to bypass the pool and that the fossil fuel levy should be tapered, so that larger users pay a lower percentage.

  Engineering Employers Federation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Engineering Employers Federation on industrial strategy since October 1992; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Ministers and officials at my Department have a continuing dialogue with the EEF. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade wrote to the EEF on 14 December in response to the launch of the EEF's industrial strategy document and is due to meet with representatives of the EEF shortly.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what actions his Department is taking in order to incorporate considerations relating to intellectual property rights in the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The draft final act of the GATT Uruguay round presented by the GATT director general, Mr. Dunkel, in December 1991 included an agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights. The views of business, industry and other organisations were actively sought and carefully considered as part of the negotiations. The draft agreement is considered to be a good text which we are encouraging other countries to accept without any amendments, as part of an overall agreement in the Uruguay round.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he is making to section VII on opencast, of the first report of Session 1992–93 from the Trade and Industry Committee on British energy policy and the market for coal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The findings of the Trade and Industry Committee report are being considered and the Government will respond in due course.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish his estimate of the trend in world prices of oil, natural gas and coal over the next 10, 20 and 30 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: As part of a study of energy-related CO2 emissions the Department of Trade and Industry recently published a range of fuel price assumptions in Energy Paper No. 59, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Radiation Emergencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the Health and Safety Commission's emergency planning consultative document No. 32 concerning the definition of zones for radiation emergencies.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, together with the Secretary of State for Scotland, has responsibility for the regulations proposed in this consultative document. The consultative document proposed that the existing arrangements for determining the scope of detailed and extended planning should continue following the introduction of the Off-Site Plan (Licensed Nuclear Installations) Regulations. Some commentators sought a wider planning area, but most supported the existing basis for planning.

  Regional Preferential Assistance
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a breakdown of regional preferential assistance in constant prices for each United Kingdom region for each year since 1980–81.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 5 June to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), Official Report, columns 675–78. The regional schemes that were included in the answer are the same as those that make up regional preferential assistance.

  International Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the International Atomic Energy Authority concerning increased levels of funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: None. I expect the agency to submit proposals for its regular budget in March.

EDUCATION

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average class size in Hampshire in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each year since 1987 as calculated (i) including non-teaching heads and (ii) excluding non-teaching heads.

  Mr. Forth
  The average sizes of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary and secondary schools in Hampshire local education authority for each year 1987 to 1992 are shown in the table. The figures may include some classes taught by head teachers, but it is not possible to identify these classes separately.

  Average sizes of classes taught by one teacher—Hampshire LEA

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1992

  26.5

  20.7

  1991

  26.8

  20.6

  1990

  26.0

  20.4

  451

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1989

  26.0

  20.4

  1988

  26.0

  20.5

  1987

  25.8

  21.0

  Primary Education
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average spending per primary school pupil in Southampton in 1979 and in 1992 on(a) teaching costs and (b) non-teaching costs; and if he will express those figures in actual and 1979 values.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is collected by local education authorities only, so separate figures are not available for Southampton. Average net institutional expenditure per pupil in primary and nursery schools in Hampshire are shown in the table. The table shows spending in cash for 1979–80 and 1990–91, the latest year for which information on actual spending is available, and at 1979–80 prices.

  Teaching costs £

  Non-Teaching costs £

  1979–80 (cash)

  274

  110

  1990–91 (cash)

  830

  431

  1990–91 (in 1979–80 prices)

  383

  199

  Notes to table:

  1. Net institutional expenditure covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the costs of school meals, home to school transport, LEA central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure. For 1990–91, figures include unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management of schools schemes.

  2. Figures for teaching posts include gross salaries and employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions. Non-teaching costs include all other items of net institutional expenditure.

  3. Figures for 1990–91 have been repriced to 1979–80 prices using the GDP (Market Prices) Deflator index.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the hon. Member for Hammersmith can expect a reply to his letter to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State dated 7 December 1992 and referring to his answer of 17 November 1992,Official Report, column 134.

  Mr. Forth
  A full reply was sent on 3 February.

  Autism
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many autistic children and adults are currently receiving specialist educational help in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of local education authorities and schools to ensure that individual autistic pupils receive the special education they require. The Department for Education and the Department of Health are currently jointly funding a research project into the education and treatment of children with autism in England and Wales.
  452
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what specialist educational services are provided for autistic children and adults; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities and schools have statutory responsibilities to ensure that pupils with special educational needs, including individual autistic pupils, receive appropriate special educational provision. The Department for Education and the Department of Health are currently jointly funding a research project into the education and treatment of children with autism.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions have been made by his Department to ensure legislation regarding the special needs of autistic children and adults in education is implemented in a fair and consistent way.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill currently before Parliament would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice to which local education authorities would have to have regard when carrying out their statutory duties towards children with special educational needs including those with autism. The national code will encourage consistency. The special educational needs tribunal will ensure fairness in the code's implementation.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what specialist education and welfare provisions are provided to ensure the specific needs of autistic children are met effectively in schools; and what steps his Department is taking to identify those who need help.

  Mr. Forth
  There is a range of provision available for children with autism, both in schools maintained by local education authorities and in schools run by voluntary organisations. The Department for Education and the Department of Health are currently funding a research project into the education and treatment of children with autism.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps have been taken to ensure that all grant-maintained schools have adequate insurance cover; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  On becoming incorporated all grant-maintained schools are required to sign a financial memorandum. This makes it clear that, unless otherwise agreed with the Department, the governing body must obtain insurance cover for building and contents and employers' and public liability. It is the responsibility of each school to ensure that the cover which it arranges is adequate for its needs.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to amend the arrangements for insurance cover for grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no plans at present to amend the arrangements for insurance cover for grant-maintained schools.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance has been laid down for the number of companies which must be invited to tender to provide insurance services to a grant-maintained school before a contract can be entered into.
  453
  Mr. Forth
  The financial memorandum which all grant-maintained schools sign sets out the procedures that governing bodies should follow to ensure that they obtain value for money for all purchases of goods and services. Contracts should normally be placed on a competitive tender basis and the lowest tender accepted unless there are good reasons to the contrary.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools in England are, or have been, in dispute with a statutory body over property jointly used or owned by the local community; and how many grant-maintained schools are currently in litigation with a statutory body over property jointly used or owned by the local community.

  Mr. Forth
  There is one case where the Education Assets Board has been unable to reach agreement with a local authority on the transfer of facilities used jointly by the school and local community. The matter has been referred to my right hon. Friend to determine.

  I am not aware of any grant-maintained school in litigation with the Education Assets Board.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all schools in the Greater London area which have opted to adopt grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The information, correct on 5 February, is listed in the table:

  SCHOOLS OPERATING AS GM

  Inner London local education authorities

  HAMMERSMITH
  London Oratory School

  KENSINGTON
  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  LAMBETH

  St. Bernadette Roman Catholic Junior Mixed School

  La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls (G.M.) School

  LEWISHAM
  Turnham Primary with Nursery G.M. School

  SOUTHWARK
  London Nautical School

  TOWER HAMLETS
  Raines Foundation School

  WANDSWORTH

  Graveney School

  Salesian College

  Ethelburga Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  Burntwood School

  Elliott School (Grant-Maintained)

  Other London local education authorities

  BARNET

  Mill Hill County High School

  Hendon School

  Queen Elizabeth's G.M. School for Boys

  BEXLEY

  Barnehurst Infant Grant-Maintained School

  Barnehurst Junior Grant-Maintained School

  BRENT

  Claremont High School (Grant-Maintained)

  Copland Community School and Technology Centre

  BROMLEY

  Newstead Wood School for Girls (Grant-Maintained)

  Coopers School

  Crofton Junior School

  454

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  Langley Park School for Boys

  Kelsey Park School

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  Charles Darwin School

  St. John Rigby School

  Hayes School

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  Holy Innocents Roman Catholic Primary School

  St. Olave's and St. Saviour's Grammar School

  CROYDON
  Riddlesdown Grant-Maintained School

  EALING

  Drayton Manor high School

  Northolt High School

  Brentside High School

  Wood End Middle School

  Wood End First School

  The Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls

  Greenford High School

  HILLINGDON

  Oak Farm Junior Mixed School (Grant-Maintained)

  Oak Farm Infant School (Grant-Maintained)

  Northwood School

  Bishopshalt School

  Mellow Lane School

  Vyners School

  Uxbridge High School

  The Hayes Manor School

  The Douay Martyrs School

  Haydon School

  Queensmead School

  KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES
  Tiffin School

  NEWHAM
  Stratford School

  SUTTON

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  Wilsons School

  The John Fisher School

  Cheam High School

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  WALTHAM FOREST
  Highams Park School

  SCHOOLS APPROVED FOR GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS BUT NOT YET OPEN

  Inner London LEAs

  LAMBETH
  Bishop Thomas Grant Secondary School

  SOUTHWARK
  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary School

  Outer London LEAs

  CROYDON
  Edenham School

  HAVERING
  The Frances Bardsley School

  SUTTON

  Wallington High School for Girls

  St. Philomena's School, Carshalton

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE VOTED YES AND PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  Inner London LEAs

  LAMBETH

  Archbishop Tenison's School

  Dunraven School

  WANDSWORTH

  Hillbrook Primary School

  John Paul II RC School

  Southfields School

  455
  Outer London LEAs

  BEXLEY

  St. Mary & St. Joseph's School

  St. Columba's RC Boys School

  BRENT

  Queens Park Community School

  Chamberlayne Wood Primary School

  Kingsbury High School

  Convent of Jesus and Mary High School

  CROYDON

  St. Joseph's College

  Thomas More Grant Maintained School

  ENFIELD

  The Latymer School

  HAVERING

  The Coopers' Company and Coborn School

  Abbs Cross School

  HILLINGDON

  Abbotsfield School

  Swakeleys School

  Grange Park Junior School

  Grange Park Infant School

  HOUNSLOW

  Gunnersbury Catholic School

  Gumley House Convent School for Girls

  KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES

  Holy Cross Convent School Beverley School

  Richard Challoner School

  REDBRIDGE

  Chadwell Heath High School

  SUTTON

  Wallington High School for Boys

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE VOTED YES BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  Inner London LEAs

  CAMDEN

  Jewish Free School

  HACKNEY

  St. Thomas's CE Primary School

  SOUTHWARK

  St. Thomas the Apostle School

  St. Michael's School

  Notre Dame High School

  Outer London LEAs

  BARNET

  St. Mary's CE High School

  BEXLEY

  St. Catherine's RC School for Girls

  BRENT

  Oakington Manor School

  Alperton High School

  Cardinal Hinsley High School

  ENFIELD

  St. Ignatius College

  HARROW

  Salvatorian College

  HAVERING

  Sacred Heart of Mary Girls' School

  HILLINGDON

  Hillside Infant School

  SUTTON

  All Saints CE Primary School

  456
  APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN REJECTED

  Inner London LEAs

  HAMMERSMITH

  Harwood School

  WANDSWORTH

  Huntingfield Primary School

  Walsingham School

  Outer London LEAs

  BRENT

  William Gladstone School

  BROMLEY

  Ramsden School for Girls

  EALING

  Walford High School

  HILLINGDON

  Barnhill School

  Townmead School

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list all schools which have opted to adopt grant-maintained status in the counties of(a) Essex, (b) Hertfordshire, (c) East Sussex, (d) West Sussex, (e) Berkshire, (f) Surrey, (g) Bedfordshire, (h) Kent, (i) Buckinghamshire and (j) Hampshire.

  Mr. Forth
  The information, correct on 5 February. is listed in the table:

  Essex

  Schools operating as GM

  Thurstable School

  Torells Grant-Maintained School

  The Deanes School

  The Rickstones School

  The Appleton School

  Northlands Grant-Maintained Junior School

  The Hedley Walter High School (GM)

  Saffron Walden County High School

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls

  The Boswells School West Hatch High School

  King Edward VI Grammar School (G.M.)

  Westborough County Primary School

  Chalvedon School

  North Crescent Primary School

  Newlands Spring Grant Maintained School

  The Cornelius Vermuyden School

  The King Edmund School

  The Fitzwimarc School, Rayleigh

  The King John School

  The Elmwood Primary School

  The Philip Morant School

  King Harold School, Grant-Maintained School

  Bromfords School, Wickford

  Castle View School

  Katherines Primary School

  Eastwood County High School and 6th Form Centre

  The Plume School

  Beauchamps Grant-Maintained School

  Furtherwick Park School

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  Westcliff High School for Girls

  Great Totham Primary School, Essex

  The Park School

  SCHOOLS APPROVED FOR GM STATUS BUT NOT YET OPEN

  Belfairs School/6th Form Centre

  Chelmer Valley High School

  Davenant Foundation School

  Jotmans Hall County Primary School

  Northwick Park County Infant School

  Northwick Park County Junior School

  Rainsford School

  Roiph CE VA Primary School

  Southend Girls High School

  457

  St. Andrews's CE Primary School

  St. Martin's School

  The Thorpe Bay School

  William De Ferrers School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE PUBLISHED PROPOSALS FOR GM STATUS

  Takeley Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Ingatestone Anglo-European School

  Holland Park County Primary School

  St. Osyth EC Aided Primary School

  Holland Haven Primary School

  St. Clere's School

  Southend High School for Boys

  Woodville County Primary School

  Grays Secondary School

  Gable Hall School

  William Edwards School

  Newport Free Grammar School

  The Greensward School

  The Gilberd School

  Coppins Green Primary School

  Colchester Royal Grammar School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE VOTED YES BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  Colbayns High School

  St. Thomas More High School for Boys

  Clacton County High School

  Hassenbrook School

  All Saints Church of England Primary School

  St. Clare's RC Primary School

  Sir Charles Lucas School

  Cecil Jones High School

  The Bramston School

  The Alderman Blaxill School

  SCHOOLS WHOSE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN REJECTED Elmbridge School

  Hertfordshire

  SCHOOLS OPERATING AS GRANT-MAINTAINED

  The Bishop's Stortford High School

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  St. Mary's Catholic Primary School

  Parmiters School

  Parkside First School

  Hertingfordbury Cowper Junior Mixed Infants School

  Christ Church Church of England School

  Rickmansworth School

  Francis Bacon School

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  SCHOOLS MINDED TO APPROVE FOR GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS
  Dame Alice Owens School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE PUBLISHED PROPOSALS FOR GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS

  Nicholas Breakspear Roman Catholic School

  The Leventhorpe School

  The John Henry Newman Roman Catholic School

  Bushey Hall School

  Mount Grace School

  Bushey Meads School

  Queen's School

  Ashlyns School

  SCHOOL WHICH HAS VOTED YES BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED PROPOSALS
  Goffs School

  SCHOOLS WHOSE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN REJECTED
  Sir James Altham School

  East and West Sussex
  There are no schools in East or West Sussex which have opted for grant-maintained status.

  Berkshire

  SCHOOLS OPERATING AS GM

  Cippenham Middle School (Grant Maintained)

  Denefield School

  458

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  Herschel Grammar School

  Holy Family RC School

  Langley Grammar School

  Priory School

  Reading School

  Southlands School

  St. Bartholomew's School

  The Downs School

  Upton Grammar School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE PUBLISHED PROPOSALS FOR GM STATUS

  Westgate School

  Whitelocke Infant School

  Surrey

  SCHOOLS OPERATING AS GM

  St. John the Baptist School

  de Stafford School

  Guildford County School

  Glyn School

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  Gordon's Grant Maintained School

  Collingwood Grant-Maintained School

  Hawkedale First School

  Heathside Secondary School

  The Manor County First School

  The Beacon School

  Thamesmead School

  Stoneleigh First School (Grant-Maintained)

  Rosebery School

  Send C of E First School (Grant-Maintained)

  SCHOOLS APPROVED FOR GM STATUS BUT NOT YET OPEN
  St. Paul's Catholic School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE PUBLISHED PROPOSALS FOR GM STATUS

  Alfold County First School

  Dunsfold C of E First School

  Park Mead County First School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE VOTED YES, BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED PROPOSALS
  Pewley Down County First School

  SCHOOLS WHOSE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN REJECTED

  South Holmwood CE First School

  Blindley Heath CE First School

  Bedfordshire

  SCHOOLS OPERATING AS GM

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  Manshead School Grant Maintained

  Queensbury School

  SCHOOLS APPROVED FOR GM STATUS BUT NOT YET OPERATING

  Ashcroft High School

  Crawley Green Infant School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  Lincroft Middle School

  Lea Manor High School and Community College

  Wootton Upper School

  Icknield High School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE VOTED YES BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  Stopsley High School and Community College

  Holywell (VC) Middle School

  Kent

  SCHOOLS OPERATING AS GM

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  The Bradbourne School

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  The Cornwallis School

  Sandown Court Community College

  Oldborough Manor Community College

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  459

  Homewood School

  The Robert Napier Grant-Maintained School

  The Skinners' School, Tunbridge Wells

  Angley School

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  Snodland CE Primary School

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  Dartford Grammar School

  The Canterbury High School

  The Hugh Christie School

  Thamesview School

  Fulston Manor School

  Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys

  Wrotham School

  Senacre Technology School

  Meopham School Grant-Maintained School

  Minster College

  St. George's Church of England School

  Holy Trinity CE Primary School

  St. Simon Stock School

  Cranbrook School

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  Borough Green Primary School

  The Grammar School for Girls, Wilmington

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  The Mailing School

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  Aylesford School

  The Archbishop's CE Grant Maintained School

  SCHOOLS APPROVED FOR GM STATUS BUT NOT YET OPERATING

  The Wildernesse School

  Westlands High School

  SCHOOLS WHICH ARE "MINDED TO" APPROVED

  St. John Fisher School, Chatham

  St. Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive School

  The Folkestone School for Girls

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  Sutton-at-Hone CE Primary School

  St. Francis RC Primary School

  St. Edmund's RC Comprehensive School

  Hillview School for Girls

  Southfields School

  Herne Bay High School

  Chaucer Technology School

  Roseacre Junior School

  Rochester Grammar School for Girls

  Tonbridge Grammar School for Girls

  The Thomas Aveling School

  The Holy Family RC Primary School

  The Charles Dickens High School

  Mascalls School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE VOTED YES BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  St. George's CE High School

  St. Botolph's CE Primary School

  St. Anselm's RC School

  Cheyne Middle School

  Herne Bay County Junior School

  Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School

  APPLICATIONS REJECTED

  Swanscombe High School

  Hoo St. Werburgh Middle School, Kent

  Cliffe Woods Primary School Rochester

  Cliffe Woods Middle School

  Edenbridge Middle School

  Rede Secondary School, Strood

  Castlemount School

  Appledore CE Primary School

  Buckinghamshire

  SCHOOLS OPERATING AS GM

  Bridgewater Hall School

  Beaconsfield High School

  The Chalfonts Community College (G.M.)

  Brookmead School

  460

  Brindley Hall School

  Overstone Grant Maintained Combined School

  SCHOOLS APPROVED FOR GM STATUS BUT NOT YET OPEN

  Hamilton Combined School

  Wycombe Royal Grammar School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  The Radcliffe School

  Beechview Middle School

  The Lord Grey School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE VOTED YES BUT NOT YET PBLISHED PROPOSALS

  Wing School

  Brushwood Middle School

  Hampshire

  SCHOOLS OPERATING AS GM

  The Priory County Primary School

  Crofton School, Fareham

  Abbotswood Middle School

  Ringwood School (GM Comprehensive)

  Burgate School

  Testwood School

  The City of Portsmouth Boys' School

  The Arnewood School

  Hardley School (Grant-Maintained)

  Front Lawn Middle School

  SCHOOLS APPROVED FOR GM STATUS BUT NOT YET OPEN

  Bay House School

  Bohunt School

  Calmore Grant-Maintained Middle School

  St. Joseph's RC VA Primary School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  Testbourne Community School

  Boundary First School

  Mill Rythe First School, Havant

  Mengham Middle School

  Blackfield Middle School

  Mengham First School

  Hordle CE VC Primary School

  All Hallows RC School

  SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE VOTED YES BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED PROPOSALS

  St. George's RC School

  Ashley County Junior School

  Recovery Programmes
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those local education authorities that have instigated reading recovery programmes other than those that have been awarded Government funding to do so.

  Mr. Forth
  We are aware of five such authorities: Cheshire, Croydon, Northamptonshire, Surrey and Westminster.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will publish his new proposals for the national curriculum; when these will be introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend intends to ask the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority, once it is set up, to offer him a plan for the regular review of national curriculum subjects over time. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales published proposals for a revised technology order in December. Proposals for a revised statutory order for English are
  461
  expected to be published in the spring. The revised curriculum for both subjects should come into force from autumn 1994 for key stages 1 to 3 and autumn 1995 for key stage 4.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children under five years in Northumberland received nursery education in 1979 and the latest available year.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1979 approximately 12 per cent. of the local three and four-year-old population attended maintained nursery schools or nursery classes in maintained primary schools in Northumberland. In 1991—the latest year for which information on participation rates is available—the figure was 31 per cent.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education 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. Boswell
  Regulations relating to education can be found in "The Law of Education" which is published by Butterworths and which is available in the Library. This is regularly updated with the text of regulations as amended.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Atkins
  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 consideration of definition.

  Casement Park Murders
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons convicted of offences arising from the Casement park murder trials were members of Provisional Sinn Fein or of the Provisional IRA.

  Mr. Mates
  It would not be appropriate to provide the information requested.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many letters he has received concerning the Casement park murder trial convictions.

  Mr. Mates
  My right hon. Friend has received 18 letters, from 16 people or organisations, about convictions for murder arising from the deaths of two Army corporals near Casement park in March 1988.

  Farm Workers
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many regular full-time hired farm workers are employed on farm holdings in the severely disadvantaged areas according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1978

  514

  1979

  1—

  1980

  528

  1981

  486

  1982

  1—

  1983

  1—

  1984

  490

  1985

  464

  1986

  421

  1987

  430

  1988

  397

  1989

  423

  1990

  408

  1991

  414

  1992

  366

  1 Not available.

  Farm Incomes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978, how many farmers within the areas of LFA designated severely disadvantaged receive a level of farm income at or below the level at which a family of two adults and two children of school ages 13 and 17 could expect to be entitled to family credit at the current rate.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the level of indebtedness among mostly sheep and sheep and beef farmers respectively in the severely disadvantaged areas for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is given in the table for beef cattle and sheep farms in the severely disadvantaged areas for the period 1984–85 to 1991–92. No data are available for earlier years or for mostly sheep farms.

  Total external liabilities (£'000 per farm)

  Indebtedness (external liabilities expressed as a percentage of total assets

  1984–85

  6.6

  3.9

  1985–86

  7.2

  4.2

  1986–87

  8.8

  4.7

  1987–88

  10.5

  5.2

  1988–89

  9.3

  4.5

  1989–90

  10.5

  4.9

  1990–91

  14.5

  6.8

  1991–92

  11.4

  5.4

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes there have been in the proportion of
  463
  mostly sheep and sheep and beef farmers in severely disadvantaged areas in relation to the number of mostly sheep and sheep and beef farmers in total for Northern Ireland since 1978; and if he will chart the change.

  Mr. Hanley
  The proportion of mostly sheep and sheep and beef farms in the severely disadvantaged areas in relation to the number of mostly sheep and sheep and beef farms in all areas was as follows:

  Year

  1978

  1—

  1979

  1—

  1980

  66.7

  1981

  65.6

  1982

  64.6

  1983

  69.5

  1984

  64.0

  1985

  63.7

  1986

  62.3

  1987

  61.2

  1988

  60.9

  1989

  58.7

  1990

  57.8

  1991

  57.9

  1992

  58.1

  1 Not available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farmers were in receipt of hill livestock compensatory allowances in the severely disadvantaged areas according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of farmers who were paid hill livestock compensatory allowances was as follows:

  Year

  Number of Farmers

  1978

  12,882

  1979

  12,596

  1980

  12,410

  1981

  12,090

  1982

  11,977

  1983

  11,959

  1984

  11,861

  1985

  12,255

  1986

  12,268

  1987

  12,160

  1988

  12,100

  1989

  12,205

  1990

  12,309

  1991

  12,333

  1992

  12,273

  Number of geriatric patients treated by RHA, 1982 to 1991–92 In-patient and day cases

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–921

  England

  297,694

  325,005

  350,280

  382,859

  397,192

  400,941

  413,961

  449,235

  471,130

  513,433

  Northern RHA

  19,324

  20,538

  20,507

  22,148

  22,166

  21,624

  25,843

  26,887

  28,180

  30,859

  Yorkshire RHA

  34,131

  36,976

  39,109

  44,369

  45,159

  47,653

  47,355

  51,188

  51,172

  53,250

  Trent RHA

  32,132

  34,502

  36,459

  40,116

  42,627

  36,108

  38,153

  43,208

  47,547

  53,965

  East Anglian RHA

  14,324

  15,185

  16,679

  18,689

  18,754

  19,879

  20,659

  21,876

  23,803

  26,006

  North West Thames RHA

  16,301

  17,990

  19,947

  21,155

  22,394

  24,068

  23,224

  26,915

  28,626

  33,287

  North East Thames RHA

  17,496

  19,278

  22,152

  24,946

  26,916

  27,253

  30,096

  34,343

  35,407

  37,865

  South East Thames RHA

  24,141

  25,573

  27,798

  29,803

  30,256

  29,874

  30,225

  33,035

  36,455

  37,805

  South West Thames RHA

  16,922

  18,872

  21,267

  21,515

  22,768

  23,796

  22,103

  23,133

  25,179

  30,049

  Wessex RHA

  14,810

  15,721

  16,864

  18,404

  20,604

  21,398

  23,205

  26,268

  29,914

  34,257

  Oxford RHA

  14,138

  15,039

  15,610

  15,175

  14,696

  14,109

  13,709

  14,044

  13,870

  14,975

  South Western RHA

  18,908

  22,387

  23,697

  25,769

  26,332

  26,700

  30,124

  32,097

  33,171

  33,883

  West Midlands RHA

  28,266

  29,775

  34,049

  37,675

  38,836

  38,622

  38,186

  37,079

  36,860

  40,283

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish a database for nursing vacancies.

  Mr. Hanley
  The establishment of a database for nursing vacancies is a matter for health and social services boards and provider units as they are in the best position to assess current and future nursing manpower requirements based on service need.

HEALTH

  Mrs. Tracey Evans
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 January,Official Report, Column 540, if she will release to Mr. Robert Evans copies of the reports which she has received from the local agencies, and of the admission reports at Brighton general hospital, concerning the case of Mrs. Tracey Evans.

  Mr. Yeo
  Mr. Evans has been sent a copy of the summary and conclusions of the report by the area child protection committee.

  The hospital admission reports are confidential to both the patient and the national health service. It would therefore be inappropriate to release these documents. Indeed, the confidentiality of all local agency reports is governed by common law or by statutes, restricting their access to any individuals other than Mrs. Evans herself.

  Patient Statistics
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in 1990–91 and 1991–92 by each individual trust/shadow trust and directly managed unit individually and by region.

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

  Geriatric Patients
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of geriatric patients treated per regional health authority in the last 10 years; and what are the predicted numbers for the next 10 years.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is given in the table.
  465

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–921

  Mersey RHA

  15,466

  17,441

  17,944

  20,046

  21,307

  22,371

  23,316

  27,649

  27,019

  30,727

  North Western RHA

  30,895

  35,044

  37,470

  42,423

  43,847

  46,908

  47,323

  50,798

  52,760

  55,448

  Special Health Authorities

  440

  684

  728

  626

  530

  580

  540

  733

  647

  774

  Notes:

  From 1982 to 1987–88 the figures are for discharges and deaths.

  From 1988–89 to 1991–92 the figures are for finished consultant episodes.

  1 Provisional.

  The information covers patients treated in the specialty of geriatric medicine and does not include the large numbers of elderly people treated in general acute wards, who are not separately identified.

  Health authorities are responsible for assessing the health needs of their resident populations and planning their purchasing strategies accordingly. We do not routinely make long-term forecasts of patients numbers in view of the uncertainty attaching to assumptions about future trends. Various studies have been undertaken in this area including work carried out by the Department's economics and operational research division, published in "The Health of Elderly People: an epidemiological overview: Companion Papers", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Private Medicine
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances the new helpline service may provide information advising callers to use private medicine; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The regional health information service, which was launched on 26 January 1993, has proved very popular with the public.

  The service deals with each request for information on an individual basis and it was set up to provide information rather than advice.

  When a member of the public calls the service and makes a specific request for information related to private medicine, he will be directed to the appropriate source of further information.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances a local authority may make arrangements for continuing nursing care of a person in hospital, without seeking the consent of the person involved; and how the position will change from 1 April.

  Mr. Sackville
  Local authorities currently have no power to make arrangements for continuing nursing care. From 1 April they will be able to make arrangements for nursing home care, but except in certain very exceptional cases, local authorities have no power to provide care for people without their consent.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals the Government have for increasing the number of students in receipt of Project 2000 bursaries.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of students receiving bursaries will increase as more schemes are approved and funded to operate Project 2000. Sixty-four schemes have 466
  been established, with 17 remaining to be approved. An announcement will be made shortly concerning funding for new schemes in 1993–94.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of the national health service towards the use of Project 2000 student nurses on clinical placements in the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Project 2000 students are counted as part of the rostered work force for 20 per cent.—1,000 hours —of their training. This occurs towards the end of their course during the specialist branch programme. During the remainder of the course students are supernumerary, but gain experience in clinical placements under the supervision of qualified nurses.

  Project 2000 students gain experience during clinical placements and contribute to patient care under supervision, but only to the extent that this provides opportunities for learning.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will extend the terms of reference of the review body for nursing staff, midwives and health visitors to cover the remuneration of Project 2000 students;

  (2) what consideration is being given to the annual adjustment of bursaries paid to Project 2000 students so that they are comparable with average net basic salaries paid to existing student nurses;

  (3) whether the same considerations relating to the adjustment to bursaries for Project 2000 students are being taking into account in 1993 as were taken into account in 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  Project 2000 students are not salaried employees: they receive bursaries. There is, therefore, no question of extending the pay review body's remit to Project 2000 students.

  Nor do we consider it appropriate to link the level of Project 2000 student bursaries to the current earning power of other student nurses because Project 2000 students are not employees.

  Student bursary levels will continue, as in 1991, to be kept under review in the light of recruitment and retention trends.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the wastage rate for(a) Project 2000 nurses training and (b) other nurse training courses.

  Mr. Sackville
  The average wastage rates for pre-registration nurse training are as follows.

  1990 Per cent.

  1991 Per cent.

  1992 Per cent.

  Traditional courses

  5.4

  5.3

  4.7

  Project 2000 courses

  1.3

  5.2

  5.5

  467
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent evaluation has taken place on the contribution of(a) Project 2000 student nurses and (b) other nurses in training in the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Foundation for Educational Research has been commissioned by the Department of Health to undertake a longitudinal study of the implementation of Project 2000. The National Foundation for Educational Research is due to report later this year. The study does not include other nurses in training in the national health service.

  NHS Drugs
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is a health economist on the secretariat serving the advisory committee on NHS drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The secretariat of the advisory committee on national health service drugs can if necessary obtain professional and other advice, including economic advice, from within the Department.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 479, if she will investigate the cost to the national health service of prescribed but unused drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. It is for individual general practitioners to ensure that the drugs they prescribe are the minimum necessary and that patients comply with instructions for their use. Advice on the appropriate level of prescribing is available from professional medical and pharmaceutical advisers employed by family health services authorities and via publications such as the "British National Formulary" which are issued free of charge to all general practitioners.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many economists will serve on the expanded advisory committee on NHS drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The advisory committee on national health service drugs is, and will continue to be, a committee of health care professionals—doctors, dentists and pharmacists. There are no plans to include an economist.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require all hospital waste to be treated as clinical waste.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Residential Homes
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requirement is laid down for the provision of tap and running water in registering residential homes for children and the elderly; and what guidance is issued in the event of disconnection.

  Mr. Yeo
  Registered children's homes and residential care homes for the elderly are required by law to provide adequate washing, showering and bathing facilities, with hot and cold water supply, for their residents. There is no departmental guidance on the action to be taken in the event of the disconnection of the water supply.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a table showing those district health authorities that are over their capitation target indicating(a) the percentage that they are over capitation and (b) the cash amount that this represents of current budgets.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not currently held centrally in a comparable and meaningful format. We recognise the value of comparable data, however, and the national health service management executive is currently collecting comparable figures for 1993–94. When available, a copy of these figures will be placed in the Library.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines are issued by her Department about the monitoring of decisions affecting extra-contractual referrals;

  (2) what guidelines are issued by her Department about the rights of patients to appeal against extra-contractual referral decisions;

  (3) what guidelines are issued by her Department about whether decisions on extra-contractual referrals are notified (a) to district health authority members and (b) community health councils.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  District health authorities are responsible for approving and monitoring extra-contractual referrals and, therefore, will have access to decisions made about them. No specific guidelines exist about whether to notify community health councils about decisions on extra-contractual referrals.

  From 1 April 1992, the patients charter has given patients the right to have any complaint about national health service services—whoever provides them investigated and to receive a full and prompt written reply from the chief executive or general manager.

  Nurse Regradings
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of appeals against nurse regrading remain outstanding at regional and national level at the most recent convenient date; what is the average period that has elapsed since the appeals were lodged; what steps she is taking to expedite the processing of appeals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  At 31 December 1992, there were 16,304 appeals outstanding at English regional health authority level and 1,625 at national level. The average period of time that has elapsed since those outstanding appeals were lodged is 23 months at regional level and 11 months at national level. It is the responsibility of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council to discuss how to bring the process to the earliest possible conclusion.

  Population Structure
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the basis for Office of Population Censuses and Surveys calculations of future population structure.

  Mr. Sackville
  Projections of the popFulation of the United Kingdom and its component countries are made by
  469
  the Government Actuary's department in consultation with the registrars general. These are based on the most recent population estimates and on the assumptions about future births, deaths, and migration which seem most appropriate given the statistical evidence available at the time.

  Subnational population projections for England are prepared by the OPCS. These project the population of local and health authority areas. The assumptions made reflect recent demographic evidence for each area and are consistent with the national projections. Local and health authorities are consulted about these projections before they are finalised.

  Further details are given in the OPCS publications national population projections: 1989-based—series PP2 No. 17—and subnational population projections: 1989based—series PP3 No. 8—copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is planning to make to its calculations of future population structure in the light of its over-estimate of the number of persons aged over 85 years in the London area as revealed by the 1991 census; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The methods used in making these population estimates have been published by the OPCS in its occasional paper 37. The information which is available about migration, especially its age and sex composition, is the least satisfactory component of the estimation procedure. Because of this a review of migration data sources has been carried out—OPCS occasional paper 39. The review identified some exploratory work on possible enhancements. This is now being undertaken. In the light of overestimation of persons aged 85 and over in the London area, the OPCS is looking again at its methodology; but it is not yet known whether it will prove practicable to make improvements to it.

  Teaching Allocations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing(a) the service increment for teaching allocations between regions for each year from 1990–91 to 1993–94 and (b) the distribution of service increment for teaching allocations between hospitals and trusts within the northern region for the same years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The service increment for teaching— SIFT—was expanded in 1990–91 to provide for the excess service costs of research, becoming the service increment for teaching and research SIFTR. The regional allocations of SIFTR for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 are set out in the table.

  The allocation of SIFTR at a sub-regional level is the responsibility of the regional health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Carr CBE, the chairman of Northern regional health authority, for details.
  470

  Service increment for teaching and research (SIFTR): 1990–91 to 1993–94

  SIFTR allocations: £000s

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  17,593

  18,010

  19,006

  20,166

  Yorkshire

  17,032

  19,758

  19,879

  20,906

  Trent

  43,440

  46,921

  49,845

  52,223

  East Anglia

  9,605

  10,181

  10,685

  10,888

  North West Thames

  27,151

  29,705

  32,842

  33,546

  North East Thames

  61,283

  64,947

  67,365

  70,315

  South East Thames

  40,076

  42,945

  46,736

  49,443

  South West Thames

  16,960

  17,312

  17,353

  17,880

  Wessex

  11,942

  12,659

  13,890

  14,989

  Oxford

  9,605

  10,181

  10,685

  10,888

  South West

  13,448

  14,627

  16,097

  18,316

  West Midlands

  18,202

  19,653

  20,516

  21,647

  Mersey

  19,201

  20,049

  20,861

  21,628

  North West

  29,477

  30,461

  32,394

  33,673

  ENGLAND

  335,015

  357,409

  378,154

  396,508

  Disabled People (Insurance)
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on the insuring of wheelchairs and other aids for disabled people; what advice is given to health authorities on this; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Guidance of national health service insurance was contained in the management executive's letter EL(90)195 of 2 October 1990. This advised health authorities that the public sector generally should carry its own risks unless greater value for money can be obtained by commercial insurance. National health service trusts are free to make the insurance arrangements which they consider to be most cost effective.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fund-holding practices there are in each region; what percentage this represents of the regional total of general practitioner practices; and what percentage of the regional population they serve.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is given in the table.

  Region

  Number of GP practices fundholding in 1992–93

  Percentage of GP practices fundholding in 1992–93

  Percentage of population covered by GP fundholders in 1992–93

  Northern

  40

  7.7

  16.0

  Yorkshire

  66

  9.8

  21.0

  Trent

  60

  7.1

  14.0

  East Anglian

  13

  4.4

  8.0

  North West Thames

  49

  6.1

  14.0

  North East Thames

  21

  2.3

  7.0

  South East Thames

  30

  3.8

  9.0

  South West Thames

  39

  7.3

  15.0

  Wessex

  36

  8.2

  15.0

  Oxford

  48

  12.2

  23.0

  South Western

  41

  7.1

  14.0

  West Midlands

  59

  5.6

  13.0

  Mersey

  51

  11.4

  19.0

  North Western

  32

  3.6

  9.0

  471
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the allocations made for general practitioner fund-holding practices in each region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  GP fund holder budget allocations 1992–93

  Region

  Budget £ million

  Northern

  66.3

  Yorkshire

  100.6

  Trent

  81.7

  East Anglia

  22.3

  North West Thames

  60.8

  North East Thames

  26.6

  South East Thames

  38.9

  South West Thames

  50.3

  Wessex

  51.5

  Oxford

  64.7

  South Western

  53.8

  West Midland

  83.1

  Mersey

  59.3

  North Western

  41.3

  Nurses
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what central information her Department collects on the number of newly qualified nurses seeking employment.

  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those regional health authorities that have deployed strategies to ensure that student nurses are not employed when they qualify.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will establish a national database of nursing vacancies;

  (2) if she will list those regional health authorities which have sent information to the NHS management executive on the number of student nurses due to qualify in 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  With around 390,000 nursing posts in the national health service in England, the matching of newly qualified nurses to vacancies is best handled at local level. The Department does not therefore routinely collect information about nursing vacancies or newly qualified nurses seeking employment.

  Regional health authorities are responsible for ensuring there are sufficient trained nurses to meet local requirements. All regions have reported to the NHS management executive about their plans to manage the supply of trained nurses to posts in 1993.

  Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified nursing staff were employed in each region in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS qualified nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) by RHA at September (WTE)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northern

  17,260

  16,950

  16,880

  Yorkshire

  18,670

  18,540

  18,480

  Trent

  22,720

  23,090

  23,290

  472

  1989

  1990

  1991

  East Anglia

  9,720

  9,760

  9,810

  North West Thames

  15,850

  15,590

  16,280

  North East Thames

  19,570

  19,800

  20,050

  South East Thames

  19,070

  18,740

  16,620

  South West Thames

  14,150

  13,760

  14,120

  Wessex

  13,660

  13,970

  14,130

  Oxford

  10,680

  11,030

  11,320

  South Western

  15,870

  16,320

  16,130

  West Midlands

  25,140

  25,460

  25,210

  Mersey

  13,260

  12,930

  12,620

  North Western

  23,160

  22,920

  23,230

  Special Health Authorities

  3,390

  3,390

  5,050

  England

  242,190

  242,340

  243,250

  Source: Non Medical Manpower Census, HAP(STATS)B, NHSME. England Total includes figures for Family Health Service Authorities and Other Statutory Authorities.

  Figures are whole time equivalents and rounded to the nearest ten.

  Paediatric Nurses
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by regional health authority area, the number of qualified paediatric nurses in employment in the NHS for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Child Emigration
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 698, in what circumstances her permission is required for the emigration of a child who is in care; and in how many cases such permission has been granted in each year since 1967.

  Mr. Yeo
  The permission of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been required since the implementation of the Children Act 1989 on 14 October 1991. Figures relating to the number of applications made to the Secretary of State before the Children's Act's implementation could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  The courts now decide such matters. Their approval is given only: if emigration is in the child's best interests; if suitable arrangements are made for the child's reception and welfare in the country where the child will live; if the child has consented to living in that country; and if every person who has parental responsibility for the child has similarly consented.

  Birmingham Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the new Birmingham children's hospital is to be built;

  (2) what capital resources are to be made available in each of the next three years for the implementation of the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan; and if she will make a statement on its likely progress during the above time scale;

  (3) when there is to be a replacement for M block at Selly Oak hospital;

  (4) when the new Birmingham accident and trauma unit is to be built.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for the West Midlands regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to
  473
  contact Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of West Midlands regional health authority, who may be able to assist with the information requested.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department made during its consideration of proposed hospital closures in South Birmingham district health authority of the possible risks of cross-infection entailed by locating a burns unit on the same site as orthopaedic and surgical units at the South Birmingham general hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  All matters, including that referred to by the hon. Member, were considered before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took her decision in favour of the proposals put forward by South Birmingham district health authority.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she took to discuss the proposed closure of the Accident and Royal Orthopaedic hospital with local hon. Members prior to making her decision on 1 February; and what steps she took to communicate her decision to local hon. Members at the same time as she communicated it to West Midlands and South Birmingham health authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  I met the hon. Member on 27 October 1992, in relation to the proposals put forward by South Birmingham district health authority. The hon. Member was also given the opportunity on two subsequent occasions to meet me to discuss the matter.

  I wrote to the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 1 February 1993, informing them of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
  474
  State's decision in favour of South Birmingham DHA's proposals and to all other local hon. Members on 2 February.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women are currently prescribed oral contraceptives.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is the current cost of supplying oral contraceptives, and how much of a saving would accrue, if the categories listed in her press release of 12 November 1992 were removed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The net ingredient cost of supplying oral contraceptives dispensed by community pharmacists, dispensing doctors and prescribing doctors during 1991 was £37.65 million. Decisions on which individual products will no longer be available on national health service prescription will be made only on the recommendation of the advisory committee on NHS drugs and cannot be predicted in advance.

  Autistic People
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom are officially classed as being autistic.

  Mr. Yeo
  These data are not available centrally. It is estimated that the prevalence of autism is between four to five per 10,000 population.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student nurses were recruited in each quarter of each year since 1985.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about numbers recruited to employment is not available centrally.

  Traditional nurse training is being replaced by Project 2000 training. In 1991–92 in England, 9,280 students entered Project 2000 training. Students are supernumerary and are not included in manpower numbers.

  Source: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how her Department publicises the availability of free prescription certificates.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The FP10 prescription form advises patients that free prescriptions and prescription prepayment certificates are available, and directs those who need more detailed information to obtain leaflet P11 "National Health Service—Prescriptions—How to get them free". This leaflet and leaflet AB11 "Help with NHS costs" are widely available from a variety of sources including Benefits Agency offices and family doctors. Information about help with NHS charges is published in a range of ethnic languages and posters advertising free prescriptions are supplied to family doctors, pharmacies and NHS hospitals. The leaflets and posters are also freely available to organisations such as citizens advice bureaux, welfare rights groups and charities which can obtain them from the health publications unit.

  Drug Tariff List
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of the people who decide what items are on the NHS drug tariff list; what are the qualifications of each of those people; what criteria were used to make the decisions to include items on the list; how often the drug tariff list is reviewed; what is the legal status of the drug tariff; and what discretion is open to consultants to waive the restrictions of the drug tariff and prescribe non-listed items on the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The drug tariff, which is published monthly, sets out inter alia the list of appliances and dressings that general practitioners may prescribe under the national health service.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to promulgate this list under regulation 18 of the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 which are made under section 41 of the National Health Service Act 1977, as amended. It follows that general practitioners cannot prescribe under the national health service items that are not on this list; consultants are not restricted by this legalisation but prescribe within locally agreed priorities and available resources. We decide what new categories of appliances should be added to the drug tariff, taking into account the availability of resources. The assessment of whether particular products within these categories should be listed is undertaken by officials, with relevant professional qualifications and expertise. The criteria used are the quality, safety and efficacy of the product, the value it offers for public money and the effect on overall costs.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS staff were employed on local pay and conditions agreements on 31 December 1992; and of those how many were recruited(a) after 1 April 1992, (b) after 1 April 1991 and (c) after 1 April 1990;

  (2) how many NHS staff were employed on Whitley Council pay and conditions at 31 December 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the cost of compliance of hospitals within the national health service with the requirements of EC directive 5761/92 concerning the disposal of clinical waste by incineration; and whether this cost will be met by extra allocations from her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The draft directive 5761/92 has been issued for discussion. We have not yet undertaken an assessment of the cost of implementing it in the national health service.

  Anophthalmia
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will commission research into the cause of anophthalmia;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effects of (a) benomyl and (b) other pesticides on unborn children.

  Mr. Sackville
  Before a pesticide is approved for use in the United Kingdom a careful assessment is made of its safety in use which includes data related to any possibility of risks to unborn children. We must seek advice from the independent expert statutory Advisory Committee on Pesticides before approving any pesticide.

  Benomyl was last reviewed by the ACP in March 1992 and it advised that applied in accordance with the approved conditions of use both consumers of produce and operators should not be at risk. The ACP has been asked to consider at its next meeting in March the most recent study conducted by the university of California. This study, which adds little to present knowledge of the effects of benomyl in laboratory animals, was undertaken to investigate the eye defects and dosed rats at a level that was known to cause these defects and was 1,000 times higher than the likely human exposure level.

  Anophthalmia and the related condition microphthalmia are known in some cases to be of genetic origin and some may be the consequence of infection with rubella or toxoplasmosis. Few studies have been done into the causes of anophthalmia and microphthalmia, and their comparative rarity makes it difficult to show any environmental association; nevertheless, that same rarity argues against commonly used pesticides or other chemicals alone being a cause. Clinicians at the Moorfields hospital are at present investigating a number of children born without eyes or with very small eyes. The Government will consider the results from this study with great care and take any action necessary.

  Health Authority Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the criteria by which nominations to(a) district health authorities and (b) trust boards are judged.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 8 December 1992, at column 638.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she issues to regional health authorities about the methods by which nominations are sought for(a) district health authorities and (b) trust boards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities are asked to nominate people from a variety of backgrounds, with the experience and skills which will enable them to contribute to the management and strategic direction of the authority or trust. Individuals may nominate themselves or be nominated by others.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the full list of names she has received as nominees to(a) district health authorities and (b) self-governing trust boards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. The process of nomination and selection for appointments is confidential.

  Mental Health Expenditure
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table to show expenditure on(a) mental illness, (b) mental handicap or learning disability and (c) social services as a proportion of gross domestic product for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Gross expenditure on mental illness, mentally handicapped or learning disabilities and social services as a percentage of gross domestic product1 2 3 England

  Year

  Mental illness Per cent.

  Mentally handicapped or learning disabilities Per cent.

  Total Personal social services Per cent.

  1979–80

  0.43

  0.27

  1.11

  1980–81

  0.49

  0.30

  1.18

  1981–82

  0.51

  0.32

  1.22

  General Dental Service: England Courses of Dental Treatment for Children by FHSA

  FHSA

  April 1989 to March 1990

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Percentage Change 1991–92 over 1989–90

  Kingston and Richmond

  58,944

  48,979

  22,342

  -62.10

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  84,074

  71,050

  33,590

  -60.05

  Dorset

  146,983

  117,040

  37,158

  -74.72

  Hampshire

  362,618

  274,159

  83,816

  -76.89

  Wiltshire

  120,136

  92,853

  30,133

  -74.92

  Isle of Wight

  27,287

  20,877

  5,410

  -80.17

  Berkshire

  169,052

  126,665

  45,759

  -72.93

  Buckinghamshire

  155,722

  118,016

  37,000

  -76.24

  Northamptonshire

  127,993

  97,252

  31,717

  -75.22

  Oxfordshire

  138,516

  102,239

  32,031

  -76.88

  Avon

  249,164

  192,215

  63,441

  -74.54

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  101,631

  82,423

  26,810

  -73.62

  Devon

  253,798

  192,449

  63,506

  -74.98

  Gloucestershire

  128,220

  94,368

  31,500

  -75.43

  Somerset

  123,215

  91,892

  31,371

  -74.54

  478

  Year

  Mental illness Per cent.

  Mentally handicapped or learning disabilities Per cent.

  Total Personal social services Per cent.

  1982–83

  0.50

  0.32

  1.24

  1983–84

  0.48

  0.31

  1.22

  1984–85

  0.48

  0.32

  1.22

  1985–86

  0.45

  0.30

  1.16

  1986–87

  0.44

  0.29

  1.16

  1987–88

  0.46

  0.29

  1.17

  1988–89

  0.48

  0.31

  1.15

  1989–90

  0.47

  0.31

  1.16

  1990–91

  N/a

  N/a

  1.20

  1 Gross domestic product (GDP) figures for England relate to calendar years; all other expenditure figures relate to financial years. Percentage figures are therefore approximate.

  2 Figures for spending on services for mentally ill and people with learning disability combine relevant (current) expenditure in the Hospital and Community Health Services and Personal Social Services. Figures do not include spending by Family Health Services. From 1988–89 onwards spending on Community Mental Health Nurses and Community Psychiatric Nurses is identifiable and included in the figures.

  3 Changes in data definition and collection may mean that figures are not directly comparable.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of dental treatment for children were undertaken in each family health services authority area in each of the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, with the percentage change for 1991–92 over 1989–90 for each authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The information requested is given in the table. Following the introduction of the new dental contract on 1 October 1990, most payments to dentists for treating children are by way of capitation fees. Under capitation, it is not possible separately to identify courses of treatment. Thus the number of child courses of treatment in 1989–90 and 1991–92 cannot be directly compared, and such comparisons are seriously misleading. In 1989–90, dentists in England were paid £163.9 million for treating children. In 1991–92, this had risen to £244.0 million.
  479

  FHSA

  April 1989 to March 1990

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Percentage Change 1991–92 over 1989–90

  Hereford and Worcester

  168,645

  129,030

  45,081

  -73.27

  Shropshire

  97,840

  79,906

  28,656

  -70.71

  Staffordshire

  217,977

  174,106

  68,789

  -68.44

  Warwickshire

  100,858

  75,393

  24,484

  -75.72

  Birmingham

  189,398

  146,709

  63,780

  -66.32

  Coventry

  47,815

  37,552

  18,151

  -62.04

  Dudley

  56,539

  43,984

  17,165

  -69.64

  Sandwell

  41,205

  34,411

  13,748

  -66.64

  Solihull

  36,913

  28,351

  11,775

  -68.10

  Walsall

  44,354

  35,669

  16,409

  -63.00

  Wolverhampton

  36,205

  27,526

  10,504

  -70.99

  Cheshire

  236,942

  186,433

  72,366

  -69.46

  Liverpool

  93,956

  79,490

  44,389

  -52.76

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  68,882

  57,342

  25,899

  -62.40

  Sefton

  62,957

  49,281

  19,688

  -68.73

  Wirral

  76,935

  60,381

  24,651

  -67.96

  Lancashire

  298,105

  246,516

  103,440

  -65.30

  Bolton

  62,197

  48,180

  18,262

  -70.64

  Bury

  43,169

  33,749

  12,913

  -70.09

  Manchester

  87,526

  71,859

  34,076

  -61.07

  Oldham

  52,324

  42,720

  18,206

  -65.21

  Rochdale

  44,004

  33,960

  14,046

  -68.08

  Salford

  27,702

  26,001

  18,273

  -34.04

  Stockport

  89,735

  66,861

  22,109

  -75.36

  Tameside

  52,450

  43,405

  19,443

  -62.93

  Trafford

  59,368

  48,541

  17,783

  -70.05

  Wigan

  71,467

  59,813

  25,906

  -63.75

  Cleveland

  135,839

  119,525

  56,430

  -58.46

  Cumbria

  111,863

  94,488

  34,855

  -68.84

  Durham

  116,447

  97,147

  42,430

  -63.56

  Northumberland

  62,222

  55,228

  19,878

  -68.05

  Gateshead

  36,820

  29,165

  10,972

  -70.20

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  49,937

  43,608

  19,886

  -60.18

  North Tyneside

  37,658

  31,455

  11,517

  -69.42

  South Tyneside

  23,337

  19,535

  8,701

  -62.72

  Sunderland

  46,370

  39,751

  18,732

  -59.60

  Humberside

  172,610

  146,383

  63,663

  -63.12

  North Yorkshire

  166,604

  135,453

  43,407

  -73.95

  Bradford

  92,399

  78,185

  31,091

  -66.35

  Calderdale

  41,508

  34,200

  12,472

  -69.95

  Kirklees

  77,317

  66,288

  23,308

  -69.85

  Leeds

  177,756

  146,640

  56,463

  -68.24

  Wakefield

  66,276

  56,388

  25,468

  -61.57

  Derbyshire

  196,725

  162,060

  60,145

  -69.43

  Leicestershire

  195,947

  163,240

  62,972

  -67.86

  Lincolnshire

  121,191

  97,861

  33,023

  -72.75

  Nottinghamshire

  230,305

  193,065

  78,538

  -65.90

  Barnsley

  46,139

  38,457

  15,138

  -67.19

  Doncaster

  76,296

  64,964

  24,439

  -67.97

  Rotherham

  54,586

  46,474

  20,893

  -61.72

  Sheffield

  120,504

  97,140

  35,552

  -70.50

  Cambridgeshire

  150,875

  119,031

  40,708

  -73.02

  Norfolk

  74,558

  65,917

  43,045

  -42.27

  Suffolk

  160,005

  121,478

  41,152

  -74.28

  Bedfordshire

  81,742

  64,186

  23,906

  -70.75

  Hertfordshire

  248,770

  200,346

  72,325

  -70.93

  Barnet

  58,244

  47,475

  23,253

  -60.08

  Brent and Harrow

  80,304

  68,370

  36,696

  -54.30

  Baling, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  72,810

  64,876

  32,413

  -55.48

  Hillingdon

  37,648

  30,295

  12,349

  -67.20

  Kensington Westminster and Chelsea

  31,776

  25,311

  9,951

  -68.68

  Essex

  320,456

  249,245

  94,600

  -70.48

  Barking and Havering

  60,456

  51,374

  21,165

  -64.99

  Camden and Islington

  34,356

  28,005

  10,899

  -68.28

  City and East London

  58,026

  53,297

  33,884

  -41.61

  Enfield and Haringey

  67,374

  58,317

  26,448

  -60.74

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  69,549

  58,145

  27,526

  -60.42

  East Sussex

  138,265

  114,710

  38,553

  -72.12

  Kent

  327,130

  257,189

  96,144

  -70.61

  Greenwich and Bexley

  81,144

  67,979

  31,186

  -61.57

  Bromley

  47,203

  41,375

  21,852

  -53.71

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  74,224

  63,575

  27,720

  -62.65

  Surrey

  251,297

  190,508

  63,117

  -74.88

  480 481

  FHSA

  April 1989 to March 1990

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Percentage Change 1991–92 over 1989–90

  West Sussex

  181,450

  142,036

  49,230

  -72.87

  Croydon

  61,594

  51,730

  25,144

  -59.18

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Car Park Permits
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many parking permits have been issued for the underground car park in each year since 1990, and at the latest available date to(a) hon. Members, (b) hon. Members' secretaries with over 15 years' service, (c) late-night staff and staff with over 15 years' service, (d) named members of the Press Gallery, (e) officers of the House, (f) Government Whips and office staff, (g) parliamentary Labour party staff, (h) Opposition Whips' office staff and (i) Liberal Democrat Whips' office staff.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  It is not possible separately to identify the number of parking permits issued in 1990, 1991 and 1992. However, on 31 January 1993 the following categories and numbers of permits were on issue:

  Permit holders

  Category

  Current permits

  (a) Members

  1

  638

  (b) Members' secretaries with over 15 years' service

  5

  20

  (c) Late night staff

  4

  297

  Staff of the House with over 15 years' service

  3

  63

  (d) Named members of the Press Gallery

  4

  18

  (e) Officers of the House

  2

  118

  (f) Government Whips office staff

  4

  9

  (g) Parliamentary Labour party staff

  2

  1

  (h) Opposition Whips' office staff

  4

  1

  (i) Liberal Democrat Whips' office staff

  4

  —

WALES

  Further Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total funding per full student equivalent at colleges of further education in each local education authority in Wales during each of the last three years; and what are the estimated totals for the next three years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The annual total funding per full student equivalent by each local education authority in Wales is not held centrally. From 1 April 1993 the Further Education Funding Council for Wales will assume responsibility for funding the further education sector. The funding council has yet to announce its allocation to colleges for 1993–94.
  482
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount of access fund money allocated to(a) further education within each local education authority in Wales during the last two years, (b) teacher training colleges, (c) other public sector higher education and (d) university colleges; and what was the proportion actually spent and the number of access fund applications in each instance.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Universities Funding Council has been responsible for distributing access funds to the colleges of the university of Wales. In 1991–92 the Welsh Office made £620,000 in access funds available to the other further and higher education institutions in Wales. This was divided between the three groups eligible for assistance from the funds as follows:

  Further education students—£209,634

  Higher education students—£368,251

  Postgraduates—£42,115

  The allocations to institutions were made on the basis of student numbers. It is for institutions to decide on the distribution of the funds among eligible students. In 1991–92 a total of £651,221.11 was disbursed by institutions which included access funds carried over from the previous year.

  A total of 3,932 students applied for assistance from the access funds in 1991–92. This represented less than 17 per cent. of students eligible to apply. Information on the use made by colleges of the £630,000 allocated in 1992–93 will be available later this year.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will issue guidelines to the institutes of higher education to provide continuity of accommodation for further education students who have commenced courses housed in higher education campuses; if he will place a copy of his guidance in the Library; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has for transitional protection for further education students who have commenced courses traditionally located in institutes of higher education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  From 1 April 1993 responsibility for ensuring that further education facilities are available will transfer from the local education authorities to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. The FEFCW is currently addressing the issue of transferring further education courses from certain higher education institutions to the further education sector.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average length of time taken by his Department to respond to general inquiries by community councils in Wales in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
  483
  Mr. David Hunt
  Detailed information on community council correspondence for the last three years is not available. Every effort is made to reply to all correspondence within 15 working days of its receipt.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline the procedures established by his Department in responding to correspondence from community councils in Wales; and if he has any plans to review the effectiveness of these procedures.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department's procedures for dealing with correspondence from community councils in Wales are the same as those established for handling all external correspondence. Every effort is made to reply to all correspondence within 15 working days of its receipt.

  Hospitals
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 769, what was the total number of hospitals in Wales in (a) 1979, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992 broken down into (i) the national health service, (ii) joint user and contractuals and (c) independent acute.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There were 173 NHS hospitals open in Wales as at 31 December 1979 and 145 as at 31 December 1991 and 1992.

  In addition to these there were six independent acute hospitals open as at 31 March 1991 and 1992. It is not known centrally how many independent acute hospitals there were in Wales in 1979. Some of these hospitals would have treated NHS patients under contractual arrangements.

  There are no joint user hospitals in Wales, nor were there any in 1979.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. David Hunt
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Marine Mammals (Transuranic Radioactivity)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies are made by his Department of transuranic radioactivity in marine mammals off the Welsh coast and in Welsh estuaries.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food directorate of fisheries regularly undertakes monitoring of transuranic radioactivity in fish and shellfish off the Welsh coast. Details of this monitoring can be found in the "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report No. 29—Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters off the British Isles 1990", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  No routine transuranic radioactivity monitoring is undertaken in respect of sea mammals because they are not normally consumed by the general public.

  Coastal Protection Services
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what surveys he has conducted as to the readiness of Welsh coastal protection services to cope with a major oil pollution incident.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responsibility for dealing with any major oil pollution on the Welsh coastline rests with coastal local authorities, in conjunction with the marine pollution control unit of the Department of Transport. They maintain contingency plans which are tested in exercises and in response to specific incidents.

  The Welsh Office's role is to offer support and it maintains its own oil pollution incident plan for this purpose. The Welsh Office will also seek to ensure that any lessons, relevant to Wales, to be learnt from the MV Braer incident are acted upon.

  Farming
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of part-time (1) farm workers and (ii) farmers in(a) less-favoured areas, (b) severely disadvantaged areas and (c) disadvantaged areas in each year since 1985.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Readily available information requested is shown in the following tables. The figures exclude the numbers of farmers or farm workers on minor holdings of less than 6 hectares, in which there is no regular full-time farmer or worker, in which the labour input is less than 100 standard man days per year and in which glasshouse area is less than 100 sq m.

  Number of part-time farmers, partners and directors in less favoured areas of Wales

  Less favoured areas

  of which: severely disadvantaged

  Disadvantaged

  19851

  3,639

  —

  —

  1986

  6,072

  4,472

  1,600

  1987

  5,446

  3,947

  1,499

  1988

  5,989

  4,245

  1,744

  1989

  6,383

  4,477

  1,906

  1990

  6,147

  4,217

  1,930

  1991

  6,251

  4,246

  2,005

  1992

  6,996

  4,693

  2,303

  Number of part-time family and hired workers in less favoured areas of Wales

  Less favoured areas

  of which: severely disadvantaged

  Disadvantaged

  19851

  1,512

  —

  —

  1986

  2,627

  1,859

  768

  1987

  2,649

  1,891

  758

  1988

  2,591

  1,832

  759

  1989

  2,439

  1,718

  721

  1990

  2,597

  1,837

  760

  1991

  2,620

  1,832

  788

  1992

  2,702

  1,979

  723

  1 Data for 1985 are based on classification prior to the 1984 extension of the less favoured areas and are not comparable with other years.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (i) farm workers and (ii) farmers in(a)

  485
  less-favoured areas, (b) severely disadvantaged areas and (c) disadvantaged areas who (x) also did other jobs or (y) claimed income support in each year since 1985.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The following table shows, for 1985, 1987 and 1990 the number of farmers—occupiers—and other family workers on main holdings in less-favoured areas who had other paid work. Data are available only for these years as the source is the EC farm structure survey which is held every two or three years. Separate figures for severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas are not available for 1985. There is no information on farmers or farm workers claiming income support.

  Number1 of persons with other paid work on main holdings within the less favoured areas of Wales

  Occupiers2 (thousands)

  Other family workers3 (thousands)

  1985

  Total LFA

  3.19

  3.72

  1987

  DA

  1.15

  1.72

  SDA

  3.03

  4.16

  Total LFA

  4.18

  5.88

  1990

  DA

  1.37

  1.71

  SDA

  3.34

  3.70

  Total LFA

  4.71

  5.41

  1 Sample data only. Figures are subject to sampling error.

  2 Only occupiers who are also manager of the holding.

  3 Other family workers include the occupier's spouse and other workers related to the occupier. Data are not available for non-family hired workers.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many regular full-time hired farm workers are employed on farm holdings in the severely disadvantaged areas according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Number of regular full-time hired farm workers in the severely disadvantaged areas of Wales

  Year

  1978

  1,237

  1979

  1,162

  1980

  1,134

  1981

  1,214

  1982

  1,202

  1983

  1,221

  1984

  1,105

  1985

  1,090

  1986

  1,291

  1987

  1,198

  1988

  1,194

  1989

  1,133

  1990

  1,040

  1991

  1,018

  1992

  977

  Source: June Agricultural Census.

  Note: Between 1985 and 1986 the method of classification of holdings used in the June Agricultural Census was changed. Consequently, the information for 1978 to 1985 is not comparable with later years.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the level of indebtedness 486
  amongst mostly sheep farmers and sheep and beef farmers, respectively, in the severely disadvantaged areas for each year since 1978.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Wales

  Severely disadvantaged areas

  Sheep farms

  Cattle and sheep farms

  1978–79

  1—

  1—

  1979–80

  External liabilities

  2—

  £8,607

  Total assets

  2—

  £122,511

  External liabilities/ total assets

  2—

  7.0

  Per cent

  1980–81

  External liabilities

  2—

  £11,450

  Total assets

  2—

  £132,604

  External liabilities/ total assets

  2—

  8.6

  Per cent

  1981–82

  External liabilities

  2—

  £13,604

  Total assets

  2—

  £166,968

  External liabilities/ total assets

  2—

  8.1

  Per cent

  1982–83

  External liabilities

  2—

  £15,411

  Total assets

  2—

  £209,427

  External liabilities/ total assets

  2—

  7.4

  Per cent

  1983–84

  External liabilities

  2—

  £13,692

  Total assets

  2—

  £234,804

  External liabilities/ total assets

  2—

  5.8

  Per cent

  1984–85

  External liabilities

  2—

  £17,679

  Total assets

  2—

  £209,667

  External liabilities/ total assets

  2—

  8.4

  Per cent

  1985–86

  External liabilities

  2—

  £30,372

  Total assets

  2—

  £209,667

  External liabilities/ total assets

  2—

  11.7

  Per cent

  1986–87

  External liabilities

  2—

  £30,401

  Total assets

  2—

  £261,417

  External liabilities/ total assets

  2—

  11.6

  Per cent

  1987–88

  External liabilities

  £37,252

  £38,115

  Total assets

  £335,061

  £319,436

  External liabilities/ total assets

  11.1

  11.9

  Per cent

  1988–89

  External liabilities

  £29,037

  £22,183

  Total assets

  £314,533

  £322,743

  External liabilities/ total assets

  9.2

  6.9

  Per cent

  1989–90

  External liabilities

  £31,020

  £30,708

  Total assets

  £359,618

  £359,414

  External liabilities/ total assets

  8.6

  8.5

  487

  Severely disadvantaged areas

  Sheep farms

  Cattle and sheep farms

  1990–91

  External liabilities

  £35,438

  £41,964

  Total assets

  £400,111

  £374,002

  External liabilities/ total assets

  8.9

  11.2

  Per cent

  1991–92

  External liabilities

  £37,022

  £35,599

  Total assets

  £365,304

  £369,665

  External liabilities/ total assets

  10.1

  9.6

  1—Information not available.

  2—Sample of farms too small to provide reliable information.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978, how many farmers within less-favoured areas designated severely disadvantaged receive a level of farm income at or below the level at which a family of two adults and two children of school ages 13 and 17 could expect to be entitled to family credit at the current rates.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Farm income is not directly comparable with the measure of income used for determining eligibility for family credit. The average farm income does not represent disposable income, it is declared before payment of interest but assumes rent is paid on the holding irrespective of its tenure. It includes an allowance for changes in the value of trading stocks but is net of depreciation. Payments of family credit also take account of family savings and information on the savings of farmers relative to their incomes is not available. It is therefore not possible to provide the information requested.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes there have been in the proportion of mostly sheep and sheep and beef farmers in severely disadvantaged areas in relation to the number of mostly sheep farmers and sheep and beef farmers in total for Wales since 1978; and if he will chart the change.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Holdings of the type mostly sheep1 and sheep and beef2 in the severely disadvantaged areas as a percentage of all holdings of these types in Wales

  1978

  75

  1979

  73

  1980

  72

  1981

  74

  1982

  73

  1983

  72

  1984

  69

  1985

  68

  ESA

  Total area (ha)

  Annual Payments (£)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Cambrian mountains (original)

  72,800

  21,864

  310,292

  366,339

  476,882

  613,130

  Cambrian mountains (extension)

  80,200

  —

  —

  111,488

  120,723

  493,422

  Lleyn peninsula

  39,700

  —

  64,066

  227,661

  284,102

  351,867

  488

  per cent.

  1986

  73

  1987

  72

  1988

  70

  1989

  70

  1990

  71

  1991

  69

  1992

  70

  1 EC type 441.

  2 EC type 442.

  Source: June Agricultural Census.

  Note: Between 1985 and 1986 the method of classification of holdings used in the June Agricultural Census was changed. Consequently, the information for 1978 to 1985 is not comparable with later years.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers were in receipt of hill livestock compensatory allowances in the severely disadvantaged areas according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1978

  10,907

  1979

  10,855

  1980

  10,888

  1981

  10,880

  1982

  10,848

  1983

  10,773

  1984

  10,742

  1985

  10,749

  1986

  10,745

  1987

  10,745

  1988

  10,747

  1989

  10,760

  1990

  10,860

  1991

  10,742

  1992

  110,621

  1 Provisional.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by name the environmentally sensitive areas currently designated in Wales, and in respect of each state the area covered, the payment per hectare and the total annual payments which have been made each year since their introduction.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The environmentally sensitive areas in Wales are listed as follows with details of the areas covered by each designation and the total annual payments since the schemes were introduced. In each area there is a range of payments per hectare reflecting the different levels of environmental management which participants in the scheme agree to undertake. Details are set out in the relevant statutory instruments and in the published scheme literature.

  Unemployment, Gwent
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many men aged 16 to 64 years were registered as unemployed on 1 May 1992, 1 May 1991 and 1 May 1990 in(a) the county of Gwent and (b) each of the district councils in Gwent; how many of them had been registered as unemployed for more than six months, more than 12 months, more than two years and more than five years; how many of them have never had a job; and if he will present the figures as a percentage of all economically active males and provide comparable figures and percentages for females.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The unemployment data requested are available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed on line by House of Commons Library staff.

  No local area information is collected centrally on those who have never had a job and unemployment rates for specific age groups are not available.

  Tourist Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether it would be possible for the chairman of the Wales tourist board also to hold the post at the British Tourist Authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It would be possible for the chairman of the WTB to hold the post of chairman of the British Tourist Authority also.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he intends to make regarding the role of the chairman of the Wales tourist board and the next chairman of the British Tourist Authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The appointment of the British Tourist Authority chairman is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, in consultation with myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The chairman of the Wales tourist board will continue as a member of that authority.

  Health Service Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many NHS staff in each of the health authority areas in Wales were employed on local pay and conditions agreements at 31 December 1992; and of those how many were recruited on or after 1 April 1992;

  (2) how many NHS staff in each of the health authority areas in Wales were employed on Whitley Council pay and conditions at 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information relating to numbers of staff employed by health authorities and the Pembrokeshire national health service trust is given in the table.

  DHA Area

  Staff employed at 31 December 1992

  On Whitley Council pay and conditions1

  On locally determined pay and conditions

  Clwyd

  2,032

  nil

  East Dyfed

  1,355

  nil

  Gwent

  2,239

  nil

  Gwynedd

  1,423

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,632

  20

  490

  DHA Area

  Staff employed at 31 December 1992

  On Whitley Council pay and conditions1

  On locally determined pay and conditions

  Pembrokeshire

  802

  480

  Powys

  535

  nil

  South Glamorgan

  3,867

  178

  West Glamorgan

  2,136

  nil

  1 Excludes staff groups covered by the Pay Review Bodies ie doctors and dentists, nurses, midwives, health-visitors and professions allied to medicine.

  Note:

  Information on the number of staff on locally determined pay and conditions recruited since 1 April 1992 is not held centrally.

  Nurses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a national database for nursing vacancies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have no plans to do so. Needs and requirements for nursing staff throughout the NHS in Wales are considered as part of the annual work force planning process.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many suckler cow premium application forms were processed during each month of 1992; and what was(a) the shortest period and (b) the longest period to elapse between receipt of the application and payment of the claim.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  January

  1,431

  February

  733

  March

  299

  April

  156

  May

  94

  June

  121

  July

  35

  August

  24

  September

  16

  October

  466

  November

  3,750

  December

  1,894

  It is not possible to provide the information requested on (a) the shortest period and (b) the longest period to elapse between receipt of the application and payment of the claim except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many late applications for suckler cow premium in respect of 1992 he has received to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of 127 late applications were received after 15 December 1992.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many late applications were received for suckler cow premium in respect of 1990 and 1991; and how many of these were(a) paid in full, (b) paid in part and (c) refused.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:
  491

  1990

  1991

  Number received

  85

  46

  Paid in full

  None

  None

  Part paid

  75

  43

  Refused

  10

  3

  Information and Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sum he proposes to spend on information and publicity in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Office plans to spend about £2.5 million on publicity in 1993–94. The main areas to which resources will be committed are:

  Industry, with continued campaigns in support of Enterprise Wales and export promotion;

  Roads, including road safety publicity;

  Health, including aids and alcohol and drugs misuse activity;

  Education, including teacher recruitment and citizens charter material;

  Agriculture, including the production of Welsh-language publications.

  Executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Welsh Office and the Department's executive agency CADW have separate provision for publicity expenditure. In previous years, expenditure by CADW has been treated as part of the Welsh Office total.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the principal elements of the increase the estimate for the present year's publicity expenditure given in his answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 2 June 1992,Official Report, column 435, and the figure given in his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West of 29 January 1993, Official Report, column 886.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The figures given for my Department's estimated publicity expenditure for 1992–93 are the best estimate of the cost of the programme at that time. The difference is accounted for by adjustments and changes in costs across the programme in general and not by particular additions.

  Telephone Boxes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of GVIR, K6-type, Giles Gilbert Scott-designed telephone boxes still in service in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am informed by BT that 1,435 telephone boxes of this type are still in service in Wales.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish the study he commissioned from Touche Ross management consultants on the transitional costs of local government reorganisation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today placed copies of the Touche Ross report in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will request from the Secretary General of the United Nations a copy of the report listing the names of military and dual-use equipment suppliers to Iraq, given to the United Nations special investigation commission on Iraq by the Iraqi Government on 26 January.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to comment in detail on the information we request or receive from the United Nations special commission on Iraq.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the types and models of(a) aircraft and (b) missiles attacked by allied aircraft in Iraq in January; and what assessment has been made of the technical threat posed to United Kingdom and allied aircraft by such weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Allied forces attacked SAM-3 strategic surface-to-air missile sites and shot down a MiG-29 fighter aircraft that had entered the southern no-fly zone. These types of assets pose a significant potential threat to United Kingdom and allied aircraft.

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

  Mr. Aitken
  Appropriate arrangements are in hand.

  Northern Ireland Duties
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect changes in United Nations obligations in the last three years have on the ability to provide soldiers with a two-year break from duties in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The only additional United Nations commitment to impact on intervals between unaccompanied operational tours, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, is the recent deployment of an infantry battle group to former Yugoslavia. If sustained this would have the effect of reducing tour intervals from 17 months to 15 months during the current year. The announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 3 February,Official Report, columns 319–21, means that this interval will revert to 17 months and provides greater assurance that the target of two years between such unaccompanied tours will be achieved once restructuring is complete. Tour intervals for other units of other arms have not been significantly affected by recent changes in United Nations obligations.

  Tay House, Glasgow
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the timetable for the purchase of Tay house in Charing Cross, Glasgow.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No decision has been made to purchase Tay house or any building in Glasgow or elsewhere to meet the requirement for the new Army
  493
  personnel centre. A number of buildings which might meet this requirement remain under consideration and a final decision will be made only in the light of the outcome of the consultation period currently under way. Once that final decision is made, I expect that the purchase of the chosen building will be completed quickly.

  Contaminated Land, Woolwich
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what volumes of waste and contaminated soil have been removed from his Department's site at Repository road, Woolwich Common, since 1990; where this material has been disposed of; what operations are currently under way with respect to the excavation, handling, movement and disposal of contaminated soil and radioactive wastes from this site; what authorisation or administrative equivalent, as defined by the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, applies requiring prior approval of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution with regard to any excavation and or disturbance of the contaminated soil; and what procedure is used to check that this requirement has been fully complied with.

  Mr. Aitken
  Since 1990, approximately 40 cu.m. of slightly contaminated building rubble have been disposed to a specialised contractor for disposal at his own disposal site. Currently a further 9 cu.m. of waste are awaiting disposal to the Drigg land burial site in Cumbria. No operations are currently under way to dispose of contamination. However, an area measuring about 3,000 sq. m. has been radiologically surveyed and shown to have some sub-surface radioactivity, which is not uniformly distributed. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has visited the site, authorised disposals under RSA60 and been kept aware of developments. The contamination poses no danger to any member of the public.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has formulated with regard to its intention for the best management or disposal of the contaminated land at his Department's site at Repository road, Woolwich Common; what arrangements his Department has made to provide full details of the volumes and inventory of the wastes there, and any other radioactive wastes deposited at present or past military establishments in the general area of Woolwich, for inclusion in the 1992 United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory currently in joint preparation by UK Nirex and the Department of the Environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Invitations to specialised contractors to tender for a contract for the removal and disposal of the contaminated soil will be issued in the next few weeks. The work is expected to take about a year to complete.

  Since past wastes have been, and future wastes are likely to be, disposed of either by specialised contractors who have their own facilities for disposal or directly to the Drigg disposal site in Cumbria, it is not necessary to include details of wastes arising at the Woolwich garrison in the United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent, in terms of land area, overall volume and average specific radioactivity of contaminated land and wastes deposited at his Department's establishment site located at Repository road, Woolwich Common;494
  what is the nature of the wastes in terms of radionuclide and chemical content; when the wastes were deposited at this site; what were the original sources of the wastes; and what assessment he has made of the compliance of the disposal of these wastes to legislation, controls and good practice at the time, and of the subsequent care and management of the site to good practice and regulatory requirements of radioactive waste management.

  Mr. Aitken
  The contaminated land measures about 3,000 sq. m. in area. The radioactivity is unevenly distributed at a depth greater than about one metre; the top metre is clean hardcore. The main radionuclide is radium-226 and the highest measured specific activity is 23 Bq/gm. The contamination has arisen from the burning of various materials arising from luminising operations involving radium-based paints carried out in an adjacent workshop building during the 1950s and 1960s. Such practices were common at that time. Current activities associated with radioactive waste management are being undertaken in accordance with all statutory requirements.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what controls have been implemented to ensure that there has not been, and will not be, any spread of contamination from his Department's site at Repository road, Woolwich Common; what has been the extent of radioactive monitoring and surveying of the general vicinity of the contaminated site; and what current monitoring is undertaken.

  Mr. Aitken
  The contamination is sub-surface. The area has a gravel/hardcore surface to a depth of about one metre which minimises the likelihood of airborne dispersal. Radiation measurements have been carried out at the nearest public access points by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the contamination shown to pose no danger to members of the public. The garden of a local resident has been monitored by the defence radiological protection service, and the results indicate no enhanced levels of radium-226 contamination in the garden. No monitoring is currently being undertaken, but it will be resumed when the contamination is being removed.

  Warrior Vehicle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Defence Export Services Organisation has taken to ensure the use of a British-made turret in exports of the Warrior armoured fighting vehicle.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Defence Export Services Organisation aims to maximise the United Kingdom content of all defence equipment sold overseas. In the case of the potential sale of Warrior to Kuwait, however, the customer has specified a United States-designed turret.

  Tornado
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for the purchase of spare parts for Tornado aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Spare parts for the Tornado aircraft are purchased through the tri-national NAMMA organisation using standard procedures based on contracting, as far as possible on a competitive basis, for anticipated requirements.

  RAF Expenditure
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total amount of expenditure on(a) repair contracts and (b) spare parts for the Royal Air Force in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested could not be provided without disproportionate effort and expense. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Spare Parts
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the combined total amount of expenditure on spare parts for Harrier and Chinook aircraft in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested could not be provided without disproportionate effort and expense. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy relating to the release of official information on expenditure for spare parts for defence equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Official information on expenditure for spare parts for defence equipment may be released subject to the constraints of commercial confidentiality and security. The Department's total expenditure in recent years on equipment, including spare parts, is published annually in "Defence Statistics". Expenditure plans for the forthcoming financial year, including those for spare parts, are contained in the annual supply estimates.

  United Nations Military Planning
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts relating to the United Nations military staff committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO support for United Nations peacekeeping was discussed by alliance Defence Ministers at the Defence Planning Committee meeting in Brussels in December 1992; liaison continues between staffs at the NATO and United Nations headquarters. The Government fully support the idea of strengthening the military component of the United Nations Secretariat in order to help improve the planning and conduct of United Nations operations with a military element. This is being pursued as part of the follow-up to the United Nations Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace" in which the United Kingdom is playing an active part.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the establishment of a military planning group at the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government fully support the idea of strengthening the military component of the United Nations Secretariat in order to help improve the planning and conduct of United Nations operations with a military element. This is being pursued as part of the follow up to the United Nations Secretary-General's report, "An Agenda for Peace" in which the United Kingdom is playing an active part.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a decision about the final disposal method for nuclear submarines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The policy for final disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines remains under consideration. We shall come to a decision as soon as possible.

  Naval Bases
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 October 1992,Official Report, column 802, if he will give details of all the measures that potentially affect naval bases which have been examined; which Departments have been consulted as part of this work ; when work started; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Many proposals which could have implications for the naval bases are examined as part of the departmental planning process. Some are taken forward, some are not. It is not possible for a variety of reasons, not least because of the uncertainty that may be caused in the areas concerned, to publish the details of such work. Other Government Departments are consulted as appropriate. The trade unions and other interested parties are consulted about these proposals which are taken forward. All relevant factors are considered before final decisions are announced.

  Naval Dockyards
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the requirement for naval dockyards in the event of British maritime forces becoming involved in a major conflict; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  All the Royal Navy's requirements are taken into account in determining our support and repair arrangements.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in his policy over the last three years have resulted from his "Options for Change" study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Plans for restructuring Britain's armed forces were set out in detail in both the 1991 Statement on the Defence Estimates, "Britain's Defence for the 90s" (Cm. 1559-I), and "Britain's Army for the 90s" (Cm. 1595). These were updated in the 1992 statement (Cm. 1981), and have since been supplemented by a number of public announcements, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's statement on 3 February 1992,Official Report, columns 319–28, about Army manpower.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be in a position to publish figures on pensioners' income based on data from the 1989 family expenditure survey.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is expected that pensioners' income figures from the 1989 family expenditure survey will be published shortly.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Lists of all statutory instruments for which the Department is responsible are published in "The Law Relating to Social Security" and in "War Pensions" which are available in the Library. A list of statutory instruments relating to the child support arrangements which come into effect in April 1993 will be published in "The Law Relating to Child Support", which will be placed in the Library shortly.

  A provisional list of all Departments' regulations which have an impact on business has recently been put together

  1992

  Month

  Rent allowance1 £

  Rent rebates (non-HRA)1 £

  Rent rebates (HRA)2 £

  Total £

  January

  1,450,750

  268,599

  3,688,722

  5,408,071

  February

  2,006,221

  268,599

  No payment

  2,274,820

  March

  2,006,221

  268,599

  No payment

  2,274,820

  April

  2,516,687

  330,750

  No payment

  2,847,437

  May

  2,516,687

  330,740

  4,227,595

  7,125,032

  June

  2,516,687

  3-786,190

  4,277,595

  6,008,092

  July

  2,516,687

  3-1,177,119

  4,277,595

  5,617,163

  August

  2,516,687

  163,209

  4,277,595

  6,957,491

  September

  2,516,687

  330,750

  4,277,595

  7,125,032

  October

  2,516,687

  210,714

  4,730,835

  7,458,236

  November

  2,516,687

  313,602

  1,316,421

  4,146,710

  December

  2,516,687

  313,602

  4,353,135

  7,183,424

  TOTAL

  28,113,375

  835,865

  35,477,088

  64,426,328

  Notes:

  1 Paid by the Department of Social Security.

  2 Paid by the Department of the Environment.

  3 Negative amounts, due to recovery from 1991–92.

  In addition, the Department paid £110,361 to Lambeth council in 1992 in respect of the direct administration subsidy for housing benefit. The monthly profile of this subsidy was as follows:

  Month

  £

  January

  36,787

  February

  36,787

  March

  36,787

  April

  79,179

  May

  79,179

  June

  79,179

  July

  79,179

  August

  79,179

  September

  79,179

  October

  79,179

  November

  79,179

  498
  by the central deregulation unit in the Department of Trade and Industry, and consideration will be given to placing that list in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition.

  Housing Benefit (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) tenants of Lambeth council and (b) tenants of other landlords were upon average in receipt of housing benefit for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The average number of local authority tenants in receipt of housing benefit in 1992 in the London borough of Lambeth was 22,800. The average number of tenants for other landlords, in the same year, was 12,900.

  Notes:

  The information covers benefit units, and not individuals; couples are counted as one unit.

  The source of the data is the Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly caseload returns for February, May, August and November 1992.

  All figures are rounded to the nearest one hundred.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much refund of housing benefit was paid to Lambeth council in each of the 12 months of 1992.

  Mr. Burt
  Monthly payments on account of housing benefit subsidy made to Lambeth council in 1992 are shown in the following table:

  Month

  £

  December

  79,179

  Total

  110,361

  Note:

  The table shows administration subsidy payments on account made by DSS.

  Administration subsidy for housing benefit is paid in two parts: 50 per cent. direct grant from DSS and 50 per cent. through the revenue support grant.

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what public appointments he has made since 1 November 1992; and what information he has on the political affiliations of those appointed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made the following public appointments and re-appointments since 1 November 1992.

  Name of Body

  Name of Appointee

  Central Advisory

  Mr. W. Dunn MBE JP

  Committee on War

  Mrs. P. L. Newnes OBE

  Pensions

  Brigadier H. L. B. Salmon

  Social Security

  Mrs. J Anelay

  Advisory Committee

  Rev. H. Good

  Hon. Mrs. R. H. Price

  Industrial Injuries

  Dr. J. Asherson

  Advisory Council

  Professor M. Cinnaamond

  Professor A. Newman

  Taylor OBE

  Occupational Pensions

  Board

  Sir Jeremy Rowe CBE

  1993–94

  1993–94 £

  2015–16 £

  2025–26 £

  2035–36 £

  2045–46 £

  Basic pension

  16.9

  56.10

  40.45

  34.85

  30.00

  25.85

  Average additional pension (Women)

  10.6

  34.95

  45.80

  42.20

  42.00

  39.15

  Average additional pension (Men)

  17.0

  56.45

  67.35

  55.95

  47.65

  42.75

  Note:

  The additional pension percentages are based on the amount of SERPS payable in each respective year to an individual who had average earnings in each year of his or her working life. They are not based on average AP awards to new pensioners as these cannot be estimated.

  Assumes real earning growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will adjust the level of benefits paid to women of child-bearing age who are prescribed oral contraceptives, to meet the additional cost of paying for a brand which has been placed on the selected list.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of Health to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) on 18 January 1993, at column 97. Since the real clinical needs of patients will continue to be met from items available on prescription under the NHS, we have no plans to adjust benefit levels.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answer of 1 February 1993,Official Report, column 24, concerning the level of the upper and lower earnings limits for national insurance contributions, if he will publish figures showing what the monetary equivalents would he if the proportions were applied to estimated average earnings in 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is given in the table.
  500
  The above appointees were chosen on the basis of their expertise or experience of the type of work involved in the appointment. Their political affiliation was not a relevant factor.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the present level of invalid care allowance as a percentage of national average earnings.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 25 January 1993 at column 585.

  Pensions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answer of 1 February 1993,Official Report, column 26, concerning the value of the basic retirement pension and state earnings-related pension scheme, if he will (a) publish similar figures for 1993–94 and (b) for all years given in his answer, including 1993–94, show what the monetary equivalents would be if the proportions were applied to estimated average earnings in 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table.

  Earnings limit

  2015–16 £

  2025–26 £

  2035–36 £

  2045–46 £

  Lower

  40.40

  34.80

  30.00

  25.85

  Upper

  303.05

  260.65

  225.10

  193.85

  Note:

  Assumes real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent, per annum.

  European Standing Committee Papers
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department took to make available to hon. Members papers relevant to the proceedings of European Standing Committee B held on Wednesday 3 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 7 January 1993 this Department sent a set of relevant papers to each hon. member of European Standing Committee B in advance of the Committee's meeting due to take place on 13 January. At the same time copies were placed in the Libraries of each House and 150 copies were supplied to the Vote Office.

  Following the adjournment of the debate on 13 January, additional papers requested by the Committee were sent on 27 January to each hon. member of the Committee and to the Vote Office.

  Reduced Rate Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men and women, respectively, would be receiving unemployment and sickness benefits at each of the reduced rates if those rates had not been abolished by the Social Security Act 1986; and how many more people would be receiving invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Grants and Loans (Refusal Rate)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the refusal rate for(a) community care grants and (b) social fund loans at the Northfield and Moseley Road Benefits Agency offices in Birmingham for April 1992 to date.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 5 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 the refusal rate for community care grants and social fund loans at Northfield and Moseley Road offices in Birmingham.
  Information is held for the Benefits Agency's Birmingham South West District, which comprises the Northfield and Moseley Road offices. The refusal rate for community care grants and social fund loans for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 December 1992 (latest available data) is 74.9 per cent and 31.6 per cent. respectively. I should emphasise that the vast majority of community care grants refusals are because the application fails to meet the basic criteria.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Offical Report. A copy is also being placed in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the effects of the proposed abolition of wages councils on(a) black and Afro-Caribbean workers, (b) workers of Indian sub-continent origin and (c) white workers respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Black, Indian, white and other workers will benefit from the abolition of the councils, which will free up the labour market and increase job opportunities.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about the future of the TECs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I see TECs as continuing their important role as business-led strategic bodies in the areas of training, education and enterprise support with clear responsibilities in such areas as the youth training guarantee.

  Training Schemes (Accidents)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people on(a) youth training schemes and (b) employment training schemes met with accidents in each year since 1989; and how many were fatal.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following table gives the youth training and employment training figures for the years1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Youth training

  Fatal

  4

  2

  4

  2

  Major

  585

  492

  378

  293

  Minor

  2,690

  2,127

  1,561

  1,389

  Employment training

  Fatal

  1

  3

  0

  1

  Major

  203

  193

  121

  79

  Minor

  969

  908

  562

  419

  Notes:

  (a) Employment Department figures for trainees have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive for employed persons. However, the Employment Department's figures include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments, and road traffic accidents, which would not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been employed.

  (b) Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. These regulations, which came into force on 1 April 1986, reclassified fractured wrists and ankles as major injuries. These were not classed as major injuries in the previous regulations, the Notifications of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR).

  Industry Training Organisations
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made by the joint Employment Department/National Council of Industry Training Organisations group considering the recommendations of the review of industry training organisations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The work of the Industry Training Organisations network review implementation group has been completed. A copy of its report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Trade Union Commissioner
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many appeals have been lodged with the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members since the post was created; and how many have been successful.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since her office was created in 1988, the independent Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members has received 178 formal applications for assistance and has granted 39 of them.

  Ministerial Group on Women's Issues
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) when is the next meeting of the Ministerial Group on Women's Issues; and what is on the agenda for that meeting;
  503
  (2) when was the last meeting of the ministerial group on women's issues; and what was discussed at that meeting.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The last meeting of the Ministerial Group on Women's Issues (MGWI) was on 5 March 1992. The Ministerial Group on Women's Issues was superseded by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Women's Issues in April 1992. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government do not give details of the topics discussed by individual Cabinet committees, the timing of meetings, or their proceedings, although it will continue to make the committee's decisions known to Parliament and the public.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers were in receipt of hill livestock compensatory allowances in the severely disadvantaged areas according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Gummer
  Precise annual figures covering this period are not available but the number of claimants paid each year under the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme to farmers with holdings located either wholly or partially within the severely disadvantaged area, or the corresponding area prior to the extension of the less-favoured areas in 1985, has declined marginally from about 52,300 in 1980 to 51,500 in 1991.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many regular full-time hired farm workers are employed on farm holdings in the severely disadvantaged areas according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of regular full-time hired farm workers employed on farm holdings in the severely disadvantaged areas in England for each year since 1978 is shown in the table.

  Regular full-time hired workers on holdings1 in the severely disadvantaged area2 in England at June each year

  Year

  Number of regular full-time hired workers

  1978

  3,062

  1979

  3,142

  1980

  2,982

  1981

  2,997

  1982

  2,933

  1983

  2,763

  1984

  2,628

  1985

  2,514

  —3

  1986

  3,301

  1987

  3,098

  1988

  3,016

  1989

  2,888

  1990

  2,794

  1991

  2,646

  1992

  2,533

  1 Minor holdings are excluded.

  2 Workers on holdings with either all or part of their land in the

  504
  severely disadvantaged areas have been included.

  3 Between 1985 and 1986 the method of classification of holdings used in the June census was changed. Subsequently, the figures below the line are not comparable with those above it.

  Source: June Census of Agriculture and Horticulture each year.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes there have been in the proportion of mostly sheep and sheep and beef farmers in severely disadvantaged areas in relation to the number of mostly sheep and sheep and beef farmers in total for England since 1978; and if he will chart the change.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of mostly sheep1 and sheep and beef holdings2 located either wholly or partially within the English severely disadvantaged areas, or the corresponding areas before the extension of the less-favoured areas in 1985, as a percentage of such holdings in England is shown in the table:

  Year

  per cent.

  1978

  42

  1979

  40

  1980

  41

  1981

  41

  1982

  39

  1983

  38

  1984

  37

  1985

  36

  1986

  37

  1987

  36

  1988

  34

  1989

  33

  1990

  35

  1991

  33

  1992

  32

  1 EC Farm type 441

  2 EC Farm type 442

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978, how many farmers within less-favoured areas designated severely disadvantaged receive a level of farm income at or below the level at which a family of two adults and two children of school ages 13 and 17 could expect to be entitled to family credit at the current rates.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is not available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the level of indebtedness among mostly sheep and sheep and beef farmers, respectively, in the severely disadvantaged areas for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following table shows the average level of total external liabilities from a sample of mainly sheep and cattle and sheep farms in the severely disadvantaged areas of England, together with the proportion that these represent of total assets.
  505

  Average indebtedness of livestock farms wholly or partly in the severely disadvantaged area in England1

  Mainly sheep farms

  Cattle and sheep farms

  Accounting year2

  Total external liabilities £ thousands per farm

  External liabilities as a percentage of total assets Per cent.

  Total external liabilities £ thousands per farm

  External liabilities as a percentage of total assets Per cent.

  1979–80

  3—

  3—

  15.4

  9

  1980–81

  3—

  3—

  17.1

  9

  1981–82

  3—

  3—

  20.2

  10

  1982–83

  3—

  3—

  22.1

  12

  1983–84

  22.5

  13

  28.8

  10

  1984–85

  13.6

  8

  31.4

  11

  1985–86

  22.8

  11

  32.2

  12

  1986–87

  31.8

  14

  36.3

  14

  1987–88

  38.4

  17

  36.8

  14

  1988–89

  40.1

  17

  42.0

  14

  1989–90

  45.6

  18

  46.9

  14

  1990–91

  37.3

  15

  50.0

  14

  1991–92

  39.2

  16

  49.9

  16

  1 All data based on closing valuations.

  2 Ending on average mid-February.

  3 Sample too small to give reliable results.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by name the environmentally sensitive areas currently designated in England, and in respect of each state the area covered, the payment per hectare and the total annual payments which have been made each year since their introduction.

  Mr. Curry
  The environmentally sensitive areas in England are listed in the table with details of the areas covered by each designation. In each area there is a range of payments per hectare reflecting the different levels of environmental management which participants in the scheme agree to undertake. Details are set out in the relevant statutory instruments and in the published scheme literature. Total annual payments since the schemes were introduced were given in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) on 14 December 1992,Hansard column 66.

  Designated area (hectare)

  Pennine Dales

  46,371

  Broads

  35,820

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  27,717

  South Downs

  69,377

  West Penwith

  7,180

  Breckland

  94,032

  Suffolk River Valleys

  32,149

  Shropshire Borders

  21,000

  North Peak

  50,250

  Test Valley

  2,690

  North Kent Marshes

  14,700

  Avon Valley

  5,200

  South Wessex Downs

  45,900

  Exmoor

  81,000

  South West Peak

  33,900

  Lake District

  245,200

  Whisky and English Wine
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide financial assistance for the establishment of a sales point at Calais docks for English wine and Scotch whisky.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that all irradiated food will be explicitly labelled to identify all food which has undergone irradiation.

  Mr. Soames
  Rules for the labelling of all foods and listed ingredients which have been irradiated have already been agreed by the EC and implemented in the United Kingdom. Further proposals on food irradiation currently before the Council of Ministers include more detailed rules on the labelling of irradiated ingredients. The Government are seeking to ensure that the further requirements on ingredient declarations are as comprehensive as practicable.

  EC Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how large current intervention stocks of cereal and butter are within the European Community; and what were the levels in each of the past 15 years.

  Mr. Curry
  Tables showing current levels of all produce held in intervention within the European Community are deposited in the Library of the House at monthly intervals, most recently on 29 January. The information currently held in the House Library goes back to January 1985; it is not possible to provide earlier figures within the time available.

  Agriculture Returns
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 134, whether the requirement of the Commission for agricultural returns to be in hectares applies to both (a) within the United Kingdom and (b) between the United Kingdom and European Commission; and if he will set out the text which gives effect to this requirement.

  Mr. Curry
  Council directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to units of measurement No. 80/181 EC as amended by Council directive No. 89/617 EC states:"Whereas the laws which regulate the use of units of measurement in the Member States differ from one Member State to another and as a result hinder trade; whereas, in these circumstances, it is necessary to harmonise laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to overcome such obstacles;"
  It goes on, in chapter 1, section 4 of the annex, to specify the units to be used in determining the area of farm land in the following terms:
  507

  Units and names of units permitted in specialised fields only

  Quantity

  Name

  Unit Symbol

  Value

  Vergency of optical

  dioptre*

  1 dioptre = 1m-1

  Mass of precious stones

  metric carat

  1 metric carat =2 x 10-4 kg

  Area of farmland and building land

  are

  a

  1 a=102 m2

  Mass per unit length of textile yarns and threads

  tex

  tex

  1 tex = 10-4kg m-1

  Note: The prefixes listed in 1.3 may be used in conjunction with the above units. The multiple 102 a is, however, called a 'hectare'.

  This directive is directly applicable in all Member States and therefore affects all returns completed with the United Kingdom and returns provided by the United Kingdom for the European Commission.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) of 11 January,Official Report, column 623, what steps he is taking to ascertain the needs of United Kingdom areas which are dependent on fishing; what sort of appropriate assistance he is proposing to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Studies have been carried out by consultants engaged by the European Commission to help define fisheries-dependent areas and their economic needs. We are presently examining these studies and our officials will be seeking the views of the fishing industry. As far as any new measures are concerned, we shall be seeking to ensure that they properly recognise the needs of fisheries-dependent areas in the United Kingdom, as well as representing good value for money and providing for needs that could not be met through the mechanisms that are already available.

  Flooding (Evacuations)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to organise with all interested bodies and people affected a full-scale exercise of evacuation procedures in the event of river and sea flooding in the eastern counties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is responsible for ensuring that adequate warning procedures exist and are able to operate smoothly in the event of potential river or sea flooding. The National Rivers Authority holds regular reviews of emergency procedures and mounts exercises with the police and local authorities to test contingency plans and operational procedures. If the police and local authorities wished to test their emergency evacuation procedures in the event of flooding in a particular area this could be done in conjunction with an NRA exercise. However, a full-scale evacuation exercise involving members of the public in all the areas potentially at risk in 508
  the eastern counties would be extremely expensive and would not necessarily provide information that would be helpful in an actual emergency.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the hill livestock compensatory allowance rates for each of the last five years in each EC country; and what information he has about plans for future changes to such rates.

  Mr. Curry
  Directly equivalent schemes to the hill livestock compensatory allowances do not exist elsewhere in the European Community. When member states change the rates of the schemes that they operate under the same EC provisions, they are required to notify the Commission but not other member states. The information requested is not therefore available in a readily accessible form. To compile a list of, and the rates applicable under, the various schemes for each of the past five years could be done only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Mr. Muir Russell
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the departmental responsibilities in which Mr. Muir Russell has been involved over the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Mr. Russell's departmental responsibilities over the last five years have been:

  Present position—Under Secretary Housing, The Scottish Office Environment Department.

  April 1990-August 1992—Under Secretary, Secretariat, Cabinet Office.

  February 1989-April 1990—Assistant Secretary, The Scottish Office Finance Division I (which deals in particular with the Public Expenditure Survey and The Scottish Office Administration Vote).

  February 1986-February 1989—Assistant Secretary, The Scottish Office Local Government Finance Division.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how often Mr. Muir Russell of his Department has met representatives of Stagecoach plc in connection with his official duties in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Before the first discussion of his possible appointment as a non-executive director, which was held on 1 December 1992, Mr. Russell had no meetings with representatives of Stagecoach Holdings plc.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by road user group the number of people(a) slightly injured and (b) killed or seriously injured on (i) built-up roads and (ii) non-built-up roads in each of the last three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested for the latest available three years is as follows:
  509

  Casualties by road user group, severity, for built up and non built up areas: Years 1989 to 1991

  Built up

  Non built up

  Road user

  Year

  Fatal and serious

  Slight

  Total

  Fatal and serious

  Slight

  Total

  Pedestrians

  1989

  2,044

  3,627

  5,671

  187

  154

  341

  1990

  2,058

  3,861

  5,919

  168

  131

  299

  1991

  1,773

  3,425

  5,198

  159

  132

  291

  Pedal cyclists

  1989

  314

  1,030

  1,344

  77

  129

  206

  1990

  256

  975

  1,231

  76

  117

  193

  1991

  255

  892

  1,147

  53

  134

  187

  Motor cyclists

  1989

  461

  815

  1,276

  315

  309

  624

  1990

  335

  783

  1,118

  275

  288

  563

  1991

  238

  685

  923

  248

  234

  482

  Car users

  1989

  1,008

  5,221

  6,229

  2,490

  5,673

  8,163

  1990

  959

  5,497

  6,456

  2,140

  5,842

  7,982

  1991

  896

  5,513

  6,409

  2,000

  5,621

  7,621

  Taxi

  1989

  30

  310

  340

  13

  45

  58

  1990

  34

  204

  238

  6

  35

  41

  1991

  22

  193

  215

  1

  13

  14

  Minibus

  1989

  25

  94

  119

  46

  142

  188

  1990

  10

  89

  99

  39

  166

  205

  1991

  7

  35

  42

  33

  136

  169

  Bus or coach

  1989

  153

  1,158

  1,311

  25

  124

  149

  1990

  108

  1,105

  1,213

  18

  139

  157

  1991

  116

  1,048

  1,164

  21

  120

  141

  LGV

  1989

  68

  340

  408

  158

  406

  564

  1990

  65

  323

  388

  122

  465

  587

  1991

  59

  320

  379

  133

  387

  520

  HGV

  1989

  33

  111

  144

  69

  212

  281

  1990

  20

  68

  88

  72

  206

  278

  1991

  28

  83

  111

  58

  170

  228

  Other vehicle

  1989

  15

  41

  56

  19

  51

  70

  1990

  7

  60

  67

  32

  70

  102

  1991

  9

  36

  45

  22

  45

  67

  Total:

  1989

  4,151

  12,747

  16,898

  3,399

  7,245

  10,644

  all road user

  1990

  3,852

  12,965

  16,817

  2,948

  7,459

  10,407

  casualties

  1991

  3,403

  12,230

  15,633

  2,728

  6,992

  9,720

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much gross expenditure on civil legal aid increased between 1987–88 and 1991–92.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Gross expenditure on civil legal aid in 1987–88 was £15.697 million. The figure for 1991–92 was £16.581 million. Projected expenditure in 1992–93 is £23.5 million.

  Stagecoach Group
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what forms of support the Stagecoach group of companies has received from the Scottish Development Agency and its successor bodies.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Development Agency invested £500,000 in Stagecoach in preference shares and convertible preference shares in 1989, in order to fill a funding gap to facilitate expansion of the company.

  Sheriff Courts (Cost)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average cost of a sheriff court day(a) in criminal trials, giving details of (i) direct costs to Scottish courts administration, (ii) legal aid, (iii) Crown Office costs, (iv) the prison service and (v) the police and (b) in civil proofs, giving details of (i) direct costs to Scottish courts administration and (ii) legal aid costs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The costs in 1992 of a sheriff court sitting day, averaged over summary criminal and civil business, was £784. This includes all direct costs borne by Scottish courts administration—staff salary costs, accommodation costs, central management costs and related adminstrative expenditure—but excludes judicial salaries which are borne on the Consolidated Fund. In addition, in criminal trials involving juries, there were additional costs for shorthand writers of £ 150 per day and payments to jurors of £631 per day.

  The average cost to the Crown Office of a procurator fiscal depute's time is £250 per day. The average cost of the time spent by a procurator fiscal depute in court is £150 per day. To this figure falls to be added the cost of witness expenses, administrative costs of witness citations and the overheads associated with case preparation.
  511
  Information about legal aid costs is not available in the form requested. In 1991–92 the average cost per case for providing legal aid in a sheriff court solemn trial was £2,049; in a sheriff court summary trial £798 and in a sheriff court civil case £699. These costs include fees paid to solicitors and counsel and outlays, including witness expenses.

  Information in regard to the costs borne by the prison and police service for the provision of services in respect of daily sheriff court sittings is not available in the form requested. The Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland has assessed the annual cost of police officers attending all the Scottish courts on, exclusively, witness duty as £7.8 million.

  ESA

  Total Area Hectares

  Annual Payments

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Breadalbane

  181,000

  16,270

  126,150

  203,600

  221,350

  264,670

  271,110

  Loch Lomond

  50,000

  —

  24,350

  48,750

  58,920

  92,240

  89,270

  Stewartry

  42,000

  —

  17,800

  200,640

  422,410

  507,620

  511,910

  Whitlaw and Eildon

  8,000

  —

  900

  26,350

  39,000

  47,460

  59,460

  Machair of the Uists, Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay

  7,000

  —

  17,570

  105,390

  155,630

  182,480

  234.250

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers were in receipt of hill livestock compensatory allowances in the severely disadvantaged areas according to the most recent figures for each year since 1978.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Year

  Number of HLCA recipients in Severely Disadvantaged Areas of Scotland

  1978

  19,802

  1979

  19,164

  1980

  19,198

  1981

  19,072

  1982

  18,760

  1983

  18,610

  1984

  18,343

  1985

  18,203

  1986

  17,857

  1987

  17,788

  1988

  17,783

  1989

  17,596

  1990

  17,506

  1991

  17,403

  1992

  17,260

  Geese
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences have been granted under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the shooting in the winter of 1992–93 of(a) barnacle geese and (b) Greenland white-fronted geese; what assessement he has made of the implications of such licences for the management scheme for Islay geese; and if he will make a statement.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by name the environmentally sensitive areas currently designated in Scotland, and in respect of each, state the area covered, the payment per hectare and the total annual payments which have been made each year since their introduction.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland are listed in the table, together with details of the areas covered by each designation and the annual payments made since the schemes were introduced. In each area there is a range of hectarage payments reflecting the different levels of environmental management which participants in the scheme agree to undertake. Details are set out in the relevant statutory instruments and in the published scheme literature.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Six licences to shoot barnacle geese and three to shoot Greenland white-fronted geese were issued in November 1992 prior to commencement of the Islay goose management scheme. Four barnacle licences and two white-front licences were subsequently revoked upon the decision of the licence holders to participate in the management scheme.

  I am encouraged by the rate of voluntary participation in the scheme. I am also content that those not participating should continue to be able to seek licences to protect their crops.

  Nurses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a national database for nursing vacancies.

  Mr. Stewart
  No. The changes in funding arrangements for nurse education and training in Scotland which will take place on 1 April 1993 mean that health boards will have the responsibility for assessing the demand for pre-registration nursing, midwifery and health visiting education and training of all employers within their areas. The matching of newly qualified nurses to vacancies is best handled at local level. In addition the Employment Service, through its jobcentres, can advertise vacancies for any occupational group in any locality on its national computer network provided that they are notified by employers.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the savings in the financial year 1993–94 which will result from the changes he has announced in financial elegibility for civil legal aid.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The purpose of the proposed changes announced on 16 November is to ensure
  513
  the continuation of reasonable access to legal aid for the most needy, while at the same time taking action to control the rate of growth in legal aid expenditure. The proposed changes are expected to reduce forecast expenditure on civil legal aid by between £2 million and £3 million in 1993–94. Expenditure on civil legal aid is, however, expected to continue to increase.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of people who were granted civil legal aid in 1992–93 who would not have been granted legal aid if the changes in financial eligibility being introduced from 1 April 1993 had been in force in 1992–93

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposed changes would not have affected the number of those eligible for civil legal aid. However, some people who did not pay a contribution would have been required to do so and those who did would have had to pay an increased contribution.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will retain all the oral contraceptive brands currently listed for prescription.

  Mr. Stewart
  Changes to the range of oral contraceptive available on national health service prescription will be made only on the recommendation of the advisory committee on NHS drugs. The committee will ensure that all the real clinical needs of patients continue to be met.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the joint geological investigation relating to the Skye bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has made arrangements to have a copy of the factual report from the joint geological investigation lodged in the Library. The designers will collate the various volumes of the factual report as quickly as possible.

  Heritable Property
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the disposal of heritable property which he regards as no longer required as for civil defence purposes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The Government's policy towards the disposal of such properties is set out in chapter 32, paragraph 1 of "Government Accounting", which requires Departments to ensure that they obtain the best possible price so as to protect the taxpayers' interests.

  Civil Defence Facility (Anstruther)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors influenced his decision to offer for sale the civil defence facility at Anstruther.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: In view of the continuing reduction in the threat of attack on the United Kingdom the Government
  514
  have concluded that it is no longer necessary to retain a number of sites containing special protected administrative centres known as regional government headquarters or zone headquarters. Anstruther is one such site.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums have been spent on the civil defence facility at Anstruther in each of the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The Scottish Office Home and Health Department have spent the following sums on the running costs and maintenance of the civil defence facility at Anstruther.

  £

  1992–93

  70,000

  1991–92

  90,000

  1990–91

  100,000

  1989–90

  75,000

  1988–89

  70,000

  Note: Information for previous years is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what value has been placed by the district valuer on the civil defence facility at Anstruther currently being offered for sale.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The district valuer advised that the minimum open market value for sale purposes could be fairly stated at £25,000, but that given the right conditions at the date of sale a sum in excess of that figure might be realised.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations which he consulted before offering for sale the civil defence facility at Anstruther.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: No such organisations were consulted before the civil defence facility at Anstruther was offered for sale.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he made of the historical significance of the civil defence facility at Anstruther before offering it for sale.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The Scottish Office notified the Royal Commission for Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland, which made a photographic record of the property.

  Population
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the latest estimates by the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in Scotland, together in each case with the equivalent year's electoral registration figures expressed in numbers and as a percentage of relevant population.
  515
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: The latest estimates are those for mid-1991 set out in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 26 October 1992, Official Report, columns 527–30. The Registrar General's mid-1992 population estimates will not be available until July 1993. Electoral registration figures for 1993 will be available in April 1993.

  Motorways
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of motorway in Scotland are currently(a) open, (b) under construction and (c) planned either (i) as completely new motorway or (ii) as existing motorway being widened.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 February 1993]: In Scotland there are 154 miles of trunk road motorway and a further 15 miles of non-trunk motorway, responsibility for which lies with local authorities.

  Twenty-one miles of new motorway is currently under construction with a further 63 miles of new motorway planned.

  Much of the motorway network constructed in the 1960s and 1970s is reaching the end of its structural life and requires major maintenance or reconstruction. Some of this work may involve widening.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what calculations underlay his estimate of the amount to be gathered from council house sales receipts in 1993–94 in Edinburgh district.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer of 5 February 1993]: The provisional estimate of capital receipts on Edinburgh district council's housing revenue account block in 1993–94 is £17.860 million, including £15.061 million from the sale of council houses under the right to buy.

  The estimate of RTB receipts has been compiled by multiplying the expected number of RTB sales—1,141—by the expected average RTB selling price of £13,200. The number of RTB sales has been derived by applying a take-up percentage—68 per cent.—to the number of RTB applications—1,678—expected to be made to the district council during the period from 1 October 1992 and 30 September 1993. The expected number of RTB applications to be made during this period is based on the of such applications—859—made between 1 April 1992 and 30 September 1992 which has been grossed up to an annual basis taking account of seasonal variations. The expected average RTB selling price and the take-up percentage are projections of the trends in such factors for the district council in recent years.

  The provisional estimates for 1993–94 will be reviewed before the end of March in the light of representations received from local authorities and in the light of the latest available information on RTB trends.

ENVIRONMENT

  Education and Personal Social Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing standard spending assessments for education and personal social services for each relevant authority for 1993–94 relative to 1992–93, disregarding in the case of personal social services the effect of community care changes, and showing in the case of education the effect of change in pupil numbers.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have today placed in the Library two tables containing the following information:

  (i) The standard spending assessment (SSA) for 1992–93, that for 1993–94 and the difference between the two in £ million and as a percentage change;

  (ii) The SSA element for education in 1992–93 adjusted for those functions which will no longer be the responsibility of local authorities in 1993–94, particularly further education, the education SSA for 1993–94 and the difference between the two in £ million and as a percentage.

  For 1993–94 expenditure on community care will be funded by means of a special transitional grant. It is riot possible to show the effects of changes in pupil numbers because of the changes in function between 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Radiation Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources he proposes to make available to local authorities to enable them to implement the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  Any additional costs to local authorities arising from the provision of public information under the Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1993 will be de minimis. Local authorities are already required to maintain emergency planning procedures and adequate resources for this purpose are provided in the local authority finance settlement.

  Drinking Water Inspectorate
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each regional water company the number of tests carried out by the drinking water inspectorate, for the last year for which figures are available, and the pass rate for each test for each company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Water companies are required by the Water Quality Regulations to take samples of the water they supply and to analyse them. The drinking water inspectorate checks the manner in which companies carry out this function but it does not carry out tests itself. Information on the quality of drinking water supplied by each company in England and Wales during 1990 and 1991, including that sought by my hon. Friend, is contained in the annual reports of the chief inspector, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Leicester, East of 26 January, about correspondence
  517
  from his Department on urban programme funding, how many circular letters to all eligible authorities were sent between 15 October and 13 November.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I wrote to each local authority on 13 November 1992 explaining the new arrangements for the urban programme in 1993–94.

  Housing
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of the extent of overcrowding in(a) owner-occupied property and (b) low-cost home ownership schemes.

  Mr. Baldry
  Current information is available from surveys relating measures of space to household size and composition, but this has no statutory force.

  The most recent figures available come from the 1991 labour force survey housing trailer which uses a criterion, widely used in surveys, of one bedroom for:

  — each married couple;

  — any other person aged 21 or over;

  — each adolescent aged 10 to 20 or pair of adolescents if of the same sex; and

  — each pair of children under 10

  The LFS housing trailer shows that in 1991 an estimated 3 per cent. of owner-occupier households in England had fewer bedrooms than indicated by this criterion.

  No reliable information is available separately on overcrowding of households in low-cost home ownership schemes.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes there have been in the proposed allocation of moneys held back from the scheme to allow housing associations to purchase homes since his statement announcing the scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  About £427 million of the £577 million allocated to the Housing Corporation in the autumn statement to enable housing associations in England to purchase new, empty, repossessed and second-hand homes was allocated in November to 27 selected "zoned" housing associations.

  The remainder was held back in order to make further allocations reflecting the success of these housing associations in meeting the objectives of the package and to allow other associations to come forward with proposals offering exceptional value for money. Further allocations were made on 13 January; 28 "non-zoned" associations received allocations worth some £28 million.

  About half the initial allocation was targeted on London and the south-east. In the second tranche this proportion was increased to three quarters, in recognition of the particular difficulties of the property market in this region.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 1992,Official Report, columns 296–300, what was the number and value of council house sales by region for the latest available quarters (a) at current prices and (b) at 1981 prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available information, which is for the period July to September 1992, is given in the table.518
  The table also gives updates of the figures for the April to June quarter given previously. These figures exclude some 12,300 dwellings, valued at about £120 million, transferred from Bromley borough council to Broomleigh Housing Association in April 1992.

  Number of council house sales and value by region (£000)

  April to June 1992 (provisional)

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  DOE Regions

  North (Exc. Cumbria)

  1,080

  30,538

  16,240

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  988

  33,072

  17,588

  East Midlands

  681

  24,284

  12,914

  Eastern

  1,179

  57,089

  30,360

  London Boroughs

  2,208

  131,222

  69,784

  South East

  1,045

  53,133

  28,256

  South West

  715

  30,308

  16,118

  West Midlands

  1,066

  40,314

  21,439

  North West (Inc. Cumbria)

  1,304

  39,448

  20,978

  ENGLAND

  10,266

  439,408

  233,677

  July to September 1992 (provisional)

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted value of sales

  Value 1981 prices

  North (Exc. Cumbria)

  1,249

  33,753

  17,866

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,078

  36,817

  19,488

  East Midlands

  823

  28,063

  14,855

  Eastern

  1,607

  78,781

  41,701

  London Boroughs

  2,802

  180,882

  95,746

  South East

  1,479

  76,212

  40,341

  South West

  913

  38,770

  20,522

  West Midlands

  1,085

  40,798

  21,596

  North West (Inc. Cumbria)

  1,641

  38,836

  20,557

  ENGLAND

  12,677

  552,912

  292,673

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publicise the effects of the changes being made to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill currently before Parliament amends the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations to bring them into line with the EC acquired rights directive, by removing the distinction between commercial and non-commercial undertakings. It is not the case that the amendment has the effect of extending the regulations to the public sector. My Department's view remains that the regulations will not normally apply where local authority services are contracted out, that is, where a private company contracts to provide a service in consideration of a fee. Such a transaction does not normally, in our opinion, involve the transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the regulations.

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recruitment of a chief executive designate for the proposed urban regeneration agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  The main aim of the urban regeneration agency will be to secure the reclamation and reuse of vacant, derelict and underused land and buildings in urban areas. It will also promote land reclamation nationally and encourage the provision of industrial and commercial premises in areas of need. We want the agency to begin this important work as soon as is practicable after the enactment of the Housing and Urban Development Bill which provides for its establishment. To this end, we intend shortly to advertise the post of chief executive. Subject to the enactment of the Bill, the successful candidate will be appointed as chief executive by the agency when established. Lord Walker of Worcester, who will be the agency's first chairman, will play a leading role in the selection process. Pending enactment of the Bill expenditure on the recruitment exercise, estimated at £60,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. Repayment to the fund will be made from the Department of the Environment administration vote (class VIII vote 8).

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made in Britain in the past eight months in implementing the agreements of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom is working towards ratification of the climate change convention and to establish the basis for ratification of the convention on biological diversity by the end of 1993. We intend to publish national action plans on biodiversity, the climate change convention and for the implementation of the forest principles and submit a report on sustainable development to the new UN Commission on Sustainable Development on the same time scale.

  Local Authorities, Suffolk and Norfolk
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of the timetable for the Local Government Commission's review of Suffolk and Norfolk local authority areas.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We intend that the Local Government Commission should review Suffolk and Norfolk in separate reviews in the fourth tranche of its work programme. It is too early to give a firm estimate for the starting dates of the later reviews, but it is likely that those of Suffolk and Norfolk will be started in 1995.

  Farm Houses (Council Tax)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to alter the council tax banding status of farmhouses from residential to business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.

  Waste Incinerator, Stockton
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the reasons for refusal of permission for Northumbrian Water to construct a waste incinerator at Portrack in Stockton-on-Tees, and the submission made to the inquiry inspector by Cleveland county council in respect of the same.

  Mr Maclean
  Yes. I am arranging for a copy of the decision letter issued on 2 November 1992 to be placed in the Library. While Cleveland county council made no submissions to the site-specific inquiry for the Portrack incinerator appeal, the council did submit evidence to the plenary session of the linked inquiries of which the Portrack inquiry was part. I will arrange for a copy of the council's submissions to the plenary session to be placed in the Library.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he will apply to the 1991 census data in choosing candidates for the third round of city challenge; what are the current criteria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have yet to receive the results of research based on 1991 census data which will help to inform future decisions on urban policy, including setting the criteria for the choice of candidates for a possible third round of city challenge. The current city challenge areas are included in the list of urban priority areas which was drawn up following the 1981 census and amended in the light of subsequent information about urban needs.

  Coventry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what concrete financial assistance he plans to offer the residents of areas in Coventry which experienced disturbances in 1992.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: The financial assistance available from my Department is not distrubuted on the basis of the location of disturbances. However, Coventry will continue to benefit from a range of housing and inner city programmes. Additionally, we are currently considering a bid from Coventry under the urban partnership fund.

  New Earnings Survey
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) of 27 January,Official Report, column 765, what were the sample sizes used in the new earnings survey for each county council and the Scilly Isles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: I have place in the Library a table showing, for each local authority, the total sample size in the New Earning Survey for those occupational groups used in the calculation of the area cost adjustment. The occupational groups included are those thought to be most relevant to the labour markets in which local authorities operate. Because

  521
  of the need to standardise the results to avoid any distortions which might otherwise arise from differences in the mix of occupations between different local authorities, average wages are calculated for each of 16 occupational groups. The effective sample sizes used in the detailed calculations are, therefore, much smaller than those shown in the table. These samples are too small to allow reliable estimates to be made for individual counties.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision exists for registered disabled people living in adapted accommodation to receive a reduction in their valuation band in cases where the property is already in band A.
  522
  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) on 5 November 1992, Official Report, column 370.

  Council Tax
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage collection rate for the council tax the Government are assuming for the operation of transitional relief.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The scheme assumes a collection rate of 98 per cent.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Council Tax: Charitable Care Homes
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any representations regarding the non-exemption of charities from liability to the council tax on residential homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, yes, the Government have received a number of letters about the council tax from proprietors of charitable care homes.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, although I thank the Minister for that Answer, I would have enjoyed it more had he told me the Government's reply to the charities. Is he aware that this will be an added burden on charities? Could he give the House the relevant definitions? I understand that "care homes" which are run by charities will receive council tax relief from the local authorities. That applies if they are "care homes". However, if they are "dwellings", they will not get the relief. What is the difference between a "care home" and a "dwelling"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks about the difference between homes that are rated under non-domestic rates, for which there is a proportion of relief, and those residential care homes which people live in and where they are charged the council tax, for which the personal element of the tax is taken away. Otherwise, the property aspect of that tax is paid for.
Lord Rix: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is not the most valuable use of local authority resources to have one part of a local authority compute and charge the council tax and, in effect, to have another part of the same authority collect and pay for that council tax from its social services department?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes, but that is true for a whole range of government expenditure. A lot of money seems to go round in circles, but ultimately it is always the taxpayer who bears the burden.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that houses in multiple occupation have always posed problems for rating and valuation purposes? Does he also accept that, under the poll tax, many people who had contributed hitherto to the rates found themselves paying community charge for the first time, but without any reduction in the rate? Does he accept that, because of the increase in the number of houses in multiple occupation in the past 10 or 15 years, many
418
thousands of people will be in similar circumstances when it comes to the council tax and that it will cause more problems than the poll tax? Is he aware of that, and what is he going to do about it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we changed the poll tax to the council tax because of some perceived problems. We believe that the council tax now receives support across parties and within the community at large. Of course, we shall find out after 1st April.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, residential care homes were exempt under the rates and exempt under the poll tax, but will now have to pay under the council tax. May I invite the Minister to consider a comparison with second homes which paid a full charge under the rates and a double charge under the poll tax but which will have their bills halved under the council tax? Does the Minister think it fair that second homes should have their taxes halved while residential care homes for the frail and elderly should pay taxes for the first time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it was never the original intention of rating legislation to exempt residential care homes, but a subsequent court case exposed a legislative flaw. The community charge was, of course, a personal tax and it was right at that stage to exclude those who lived in residential care accommodation. The council tax is partly a tax on property and partly a tax on people. Residential care homes drop a band because they have extra bathrooms to deal with the disabled, and the personal charge is exempted. Therefore, a home with patients will pay only 50 per cent.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Scotland operates altogether a different policy from that in England? Why does Scotland classify such homes differently from the English system with the result that such homes are benefiting from the 80 per cent. discount on the rateable value?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know—and I am very much aware—that many things are done differently between Scotland and England. That reflects the way in which Parliament has decided to do its business.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in answer to my previous question, the Minister explained that the reason that residential homes would pay was because the council tax is a mixture of a personal tax and a property tax. Does he agree that under the personal tax (the poll tax) residential homes were exempt and that under the property tax (the rates) residential homes were exempt; so that when we have a mixed tax (a personal and a property tax) can he tell us why such homes should pay?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I explained to the noble Baroness that the original intention of the rates was that those homes should pay, but that because of a legislative flaw that was changed. The proof of that is to be found in Hansard of that period and contemporary DoE guidance. I feel that the

419
Government have gone a long way towards treating people who live in homes equally to those who live outside and suffer from similar disabilities.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that some residential care homes are owned by charities and some by private individuals? While I have every sympathy with the charities, it would be difficult for local authorities to have to assess one on its charitable basis and another on its profit-making basis.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Countess is correct. We are looking to treat people in the same circumstances equally, whether they are in the local authority, the private or the voluntary sector.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has the Minister heard of the programme called Care in the Community? If he has heard of that programme, does he understand that housing associations, which are asked to bear a large part of the burden of providing residential accommodation for those covered by Care in the Community, feel themselves seriously disadvantaged by the operation of the council tax? Indeed, many housing associations are at this moment complaining to his department about the extra cost that that will involve. Is it not time for the Minister's department to rethink this matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are talking about residential homes, not housing associations.

Somalia: Distribution of Aid
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress being made by the United Nations in distributing aid in Somalia.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, since December the deployment of the unified task force (UNITAF) has enabled the UN and NGOs to deliver aid much more effectively to most parts of the country.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I express my appreciation to the noble Baroness for her Answer. Is she aware that we are now witnessing one of the most grotesque examples of man's inhumanity to man? Much of the aid being sent to Somalia about which she spoke is being looted by gangsters, some of whom have been dealt with by the Americans with British aid. Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has been there, but does not seem to be doing anything. Is it possible for the Government to acknowledge the terrible sufferings of the people in Somalia and to call upon all the United Nations, not merely Britain and the USA, to make a contribution towards relieving the suffering and stopping the gangsterism in that country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that Operation Restore Hope consists of 22 different countries and involves 39,000 people from those countries. The purpose of Operation Restore Hope is to secure the relief effort. We accept
420
that it is in the nature of such humanitarian assistance that some pilfering may take place. Discussions are already under way for a hand-over of responsibility from Operation Restore Hope to a revised UN special operation. We have made it clear that such an operation will need to have adequate personnel and a strong mandate to enable it to build upon the success of Operation Restore Hope.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Baroness express the support and admiration of the Government and the House for the excellent humanitarian work being done in Somalia by UNICEF, Oxfam and other organisations, and express sympathy with the relatives of those aid workers who have lost their lives? Will she outline what progress has been made in the talks between the United Nations and the USA in relation to the future structure and composition of the international peacekeeping force in Somalia?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, relief programmes cannot be run effectively or efficiently without security and good co-ordination at the field level among donors, local participants, UN agencies, and NGOs. NGOs are absolutely key and often forgotten. I gladly acknowledge, as the noble Lord did, our debt to them.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please answer the second part of my question about the progress of talks between the UN and the USA on the future of the international peacekeeping force?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, talks are proceeding. My noble friend Lady Chalker has been in Africa—Somalia and Kenya—during the past weekend. She will return tomorrow and there will then no doubt be more information as to how her talks with the UN and other officials have progressed.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness satisfied that with regard to the distribution of aid in Somalia, and the attempts at reconciliation, sufficient recognition is being given to the traditional community leaders rather than the war lords? I am referring, in shorthand, to the tribal chiefs. If more recognition were given to their part in the life of the society might that not help towards stability in the longer term?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in reply to the right reverend Prelate, the Addis Ababa meeting on 4th January produced agreement among the warring factions on a ceasefire, disarmament, encampment of militias and a national reconciliation conference on 15th March in Addis Ababa. We hope that the reconciliation progress will involve all sections of Somali society.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when the USA sent in 25,000 troops, it was thought that that would be a short, sharp operation ending by the middle of January. It has not ended. Can the noble Baroness now give an estimate of when it will end?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no. I was unaware that we were looking at the situation as a

421
short, sharp exercise. It will be a long time before that country returns to a more normal situation. That is why talks are progressing with the UN.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the power of the current gangster war lords it is useless to send aid of any kind. They must first be put down. Will the noble Baroness consider what must then be done at the United Nations, with a lead from Britain, in order to create a reputable police force in that part of the world?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is essential that there is a clear plan for the hand-over of responsibility from the coalition forces to the UN when the former leave. Discussions on that issue are under way and we are pressing for the UN operation to be adequately resourced.

Independent Living Fund: New Arrangements
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following their announcement about the successor bodies to the Independent Living Fund, which organisations have made representations on this subject, and what have been their chief concerns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, representations have been received from a number of organisations, including Age Concern and the Alzheimer's Disease Society. Their chief concerns have been the early closure of the existing Independent Living Fund to new applications and the fact that the successor body for new cases will be restricted to those aged 16 to 65 at the time of application.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate that Answer. Has the Minister been able to give a constructive response to the bodies concerned? Will he consider that in future severely disabled people will suffer under the new arrangements because there will be a mixture of cash from the new body and services from the local authorities? Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the local authorities can deliver and, even if they can, severely disabled people will not have control of their own lives. Therefore, will the Government allow local authorities to pay cash and will Ministers meet with organisations representing the disabled in order to discuss those issues?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People is always prepared to meet any organisation in order to discuss further the arrangements. But I believe that we have been able to give adequate responses to the representations made by the different organisations. This is not the time or the place to list exactly what those responses were because I should be wasting the House's time.
422
The noble Lord also asked that we consider whether the local authorities ought to be able to make cash payments. I would not wish to re-run all the arguments which went through both Houses of Parliament during the passage of what is now the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. As the noble Lord will know, we gave careful consideration to whether local authorities should be able to make cash payments. However, there are considerable difficulties in determining which clients would be eligible and in the controlling of costs. There is also the danger of creating a bureaucratic and inflexible system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is it not the case that claimants of the ILF had to be in receipt of a disability living allowance? Is it not also the case that when on 25th November the shutters came down on that fund the processing of claims for DLA was running up to three months late? As a result of government delays many people lost eligibility for funding from the ILF through no fault of their own. How many people lost their funding as a result of government delays? Furthermore, what does the Minister intend to do about that; and what is happening to all those who would have been eligible for funding between 25th November and 1st April, when the new fund comes into existence?
Lord Henley: My Lords, not surprisingly, the noble Baroness is wrong—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: My Lords, it was never the case that individuals had to be in receipt of a disability living allowance in order to receive an award from the ILF. It was always the case that the ILF had the discretion to deal with claims before any such application for a disability living allowance had been dealt with. In response to the noble Baroness's second question, we have received only 20 complaints or queries on that matter.
Lord Rix: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that when the Government consider the pros and cons of the new arrangements they will take into consideration the effect on those people with a severe learning disability who, thanks to the ILF, have already obtained houses in the community?
Lord Henley: My Lords, all those in receipt of funds from the ILF will be protected under the new arrangements. As the noble Lord will know, there will be two successor funds to the ILF, one of which will deal with existing cases. More than 20,000 people are in receipt of funds from the ILF and they will be protected.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister consider giving a more felicitous answer to my noble friend on the Front Bench?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on the basis of the record so far it is far

423
more likely that my noble friend is correct than those on the Government Benches, who are often wrongly briefed, even if they understand the briefs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I always thought that I was felicitous in my response to the noble Baroness, and for that matter to the noble Lord. It so happens that on this occasion the noble Baroness is wrong.

Employment Appeal Tribunal
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the average delay in securing hearings before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the average length of time for a case to come to hearing is two years.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is that not quite unacceptable? It must be understood that this is on top of delays at industrial tribunal level and, therefore, it could take four years to resolve an employment issue such as unfair dismissal. Is that really the way to enforce employment rights? Cannot more resources be allocated to the system? Can we not have more judges? Why is it that the waiting time in Scotland is so much shorter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I accept that the current delays in cases receiving to a full hearing are unacceptable. During 1992 and continuing into 1993 my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who appoints the judges, has made additional judge time available. In addition, an extra courtroom has been provided so that four courts can sit simultaneously. As regards the noble Baroness's final point, it is a matter of pressure on resources; the courts in Scotland do not deal with as many appeals.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the average delay is two years, what is the longest delay for any case?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not have that figure. It would be wrong to indicate that all the cases which go to appeal receive a full hearing. It is decided that many do not fall within the jurisdiction of the court at a preliminary hearing; many are settled, and many others are withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister provide an answer to my question at some stage? Perhaps he will place a copy in the Library?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, considering that judge power comes from a single pool, will my noble friend approach my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack yet again for an increase in the number of judges of adequate quality in order to deal with all forms of judicial work?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I hear what my noble and learned friend has said. I daresay that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has also heard his remark.
Lord Meston: My Lords, will the Minister indicate what is the average delay in cases in which reinstatement or re-engagement of the employee is a live issue?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that all the cases of unfair dismissal, for instance, which go to appeal can have that result. However, at the end of the day whether there is compensation or reinstatement is decided by the appeal tribunal.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the Minister indicate the extent to which the changes in the constitution of the industrial and employment appeals tribunals proposed in the current employment legislation will speed up the hearings?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. The proposals in the current employment legislation will enable cases to be handled more speedily because it will allow for the Employment Appeal Tribunal's president and judges to sit alone in certain cases. Obviously the arrangement of a court of only one will be much more speedy than with the lay members.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that if it takes so long to enforce employment rights, there is not much point in having them in legislation at all? Should not something more be done to increase resources to the EAT? Is it a fact that only one of the judges sitting is full time while the other three are High Court judges?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords; I understand that to be the position. The president is a full-time judge. It is a question of judge time rather than full-time judges. I do not agree with the noble Baroness's first point. I believe that industrial tribunals and the EAT can effectively decide many industrial relations cases and they are worthy of support.

Business
3 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 that is to be made in another place on public expenditure reviews.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:
OWNERSHIP OF ITEMS ON THE ORDER PAPER
1. Standing Order 40(2) states that a Lord may only move a Motion or ask a Question standing in the name of another Lord if he has been specifically authorised to do so. The Committee considers that there may be occasions when the Lord named on the Order Paper has not had an opportunity to authorise a substitute, but when it would be in the interests of the House for the Question or Motion to proceed. The Committee therefore recommends the following amendment to Standing Order 40(2):
At end insert (", unless unanimous leave is granted by the House.")
A Lord wishing to move a Motion or ask a Question in this way would therefore have to ask the House for leave. The Question would then be put, and a single dissentient voice would be enough to ensure that leave was not given.
SUPPORTERS AT INTRODUCTIONS
2. The Committee was asked to consider whether a new peer should be free to choose supporters from any degree of the peerage. The current practice is that supporters should be of the same degree of peerage as the new peer. The logic of this practice is that the new peer has to be led to the correct bench at the end of the introduction ceremony. The Committee believes that there is insufficient reason to change such an ancient ceremony, and recommends no change.
3. House of Lords precedence is determined by the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539. The Act lists the correct order of all Lords in detail, with a place specified for individuals such as the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The Committee recommends that although these Lords appear individually in the Roll of the Lords, they should be free to act as supporters for new Lords of the same degree. It also recommends that the precedence of the Lord President and the Lord Privy Seal as office holders should determine their seniority as supporters.
SPEAKERS LISTS
4. At present, any Lord who contacts the Government Whips' Office by 1 pm can be put on the lists of speakers compiled for most debates. The result is that lists of speakers are only available shortly before the sitting of the House. The Committee considers that this can inconvenience the House, particularly when Lords taking part in time-limited debates do not know the maximum time allowed for their speeches until shortly before the debate begins. The Committee therefore recommends that the deadline for names should be brought forward to 12 noon, and should be fixed at 6 pm the previous evening on days when the House is sitting in the morning.
DIVISIONS
5. On 29th October 1992, a Division was called on the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]. The Division bells failed to ring, and it was decided that the time allowed before the doors were locked should be extended. This was in line with practice in the House of Commons under similar circumstances. 1The Committee recommends that a discretion to extend the time required for a Division should be authorised. It also recommends that the opportunity should be taken to streamline Standing Order 51. The detailed arrangements for Divisions are already explained in the Companion (pp 53–62). The Committee proposes the following revision of Standing Order 51:
Standing Order 51

51 - (1) When, on the Question being put, a Division is called for, the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall order the Bar to be cleared. Two Tellers shall be appointed by the Contents and two by the Not-Contents.

426

(2) If, after a lapse of three minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared, Tellers have not been appointed either for the Contents or the Not-Contents, a Division cannot take place. The Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall declare the Question decided in favour of the side which has appointed Tellers.

(3) One Teller for the Contents and one for the Not-Contents shall be appointed for each Division Lobby without respect to their degree; and Clerks shall be in attendance in each Lobby to record the names of the Contents and Not-Contents respectively; the Tellers shall count the votes and announce the numbers to the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair.

(4) After the lapse of six minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared, or longer at the discretion of the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair, the doors of the Chamber shall be locked, and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall inform the House or the Committee of the Question which is the subject of the Division.

(5) A Lord may vote in a Division although he did not hear the Question put.

DEBATES ON CONSOLIDATED FUND BILLS
6. On the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on 17th December 1992, the House discussed whether debate should take place on consolidated fund Bills.2 The Committee endorses the guidance given in the Companion, p 124:
"It does not offend the privileges of the Commons for the Lords to discuss or even to decide upon consolidated fund Bills, but the House has habitually passed such Bills without printing them and without discussion or dissent. It is now a convention that proceedings upon them are taken formally."
WRITTEN ANSWERS FROM EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
7. Questions for Written Answer on matters within the detailed work delegated to executive agencies are customarily answered by the agencies themselves. However, answers given directly from an agency cannot be printed in the Official Report, which only prints answers from a member of the Government. A formula has therefore been adopted which filters the answer through a member of the Government, allowing the text of the letter to be given in the Official Report without endowing the answer with parliamentary privilege, which confers freedom from legal proceedings on statements by MPs and Lords in Parliament. The Committee recommends that this practice be endorsed.
CHANGES TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS JOURNALS
8. The Committee has considered two proposals for additions to the House of Lords Journals. The inclusion of new peers' Letters Patents, and of the reports of domestic committee reports such as the Procedure Committee, the Offices Committee, the Committee for Privileges and the Liaison Committee would make the Journal a more useful procedural tool, without adding significantly to its size. The Committee recommends that these changes take effect from the 1992–93 Journal.
1 Erskine May, 21st Edition, p 346.
2 H.L. Debs 17 December 1992, cols 654–656.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House in referring to two questions which arise from the report of the Select Committee. I observe that the three pages of the report are available to the public at a cost of £2.10, which works out at quite a large sum, as against the cost of Hansard which works out at £4.20 for 51 pages.
Your Lordships will recall that when we were in the process of passing the Consolidated Fund Bill on 17th

427
December last year I raised the whole question of the possibility of debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. That is referred to at paragraph 6 of the report in the following terms:
"The Committee endorses the guidance given in the Companion, p 124".
I should like to quote from that because I shall refer to it. It states:
"It does not offend the privileges of the Commons for the Lords to discuss or even to decide upon consolidated fund Bills, but the House has habitually passed such Bills without printing them and without discussion or dissent. It is now a convention that proceedings upon them are taken formally".
I ask the House whether it is really desirable in the current circumstances to continue with the convention.
I am well aware that on the raising of a Consolidated Fund Bill in your Lordships' House it is still quite in order for a debate to take place upon it because the rights of this House are, of course, reserved. Unfortunately, those who do desire a debate on the Bill when it comes to your Lordships' House suffer under the stigma of it being against the traditions of the House and its ordinary conventions. Nobody likes to talk to your Lordships under circumstances which are, as it were, disapproved of and against convention. Therefore, I ask that that convention now be removed.
It is common knowledge that your Lordships' House, its nature, functions and the whole reputation and aura surrounding it have changed substantially over the past 30 years. Gone are the times when your Lordships' House met at 2.30 p.m. and almost as a matter of routine terminated its proceedings at 5.30 p.m. Quite correctly, save on extremely important occasions, its activities did not attract very much attention in the country at large. However, since the passing of the Life Peerages Act in 1958, the situation has changed considerably.
I should be the last person to disparage in any way the activities or abilities of those descendants in your Lordships' House present with us who are the result of past patronage as distinct from those of us who are the result of present patronage. However, it must be agreed that over the past 20 to 30 years there has been an accretion to the House of a number of people, from which group I exclude myself, who are well versed in the professions and business and who bring a great variety of talents to the House, enriching its former structure.
Surely in those circumstances there should be one day per year on which any Member of your Lordships' House can raise a subject that he considers to be of public importance. In the Commons the procedure used to be to raise the matter on the discussions on the Consolidated Fund Bill, a practice which was sometimes continued here. I am instructed that another place has now ceased to do that. Therefore, it is all the more important that that should be carried on here. Surely there should be one day, outside the ordinary conventional procedure of tabling a Motion,
428
on which matters of public interest could be aired publicly and discussed at the instance of any Back-Bencher of your Lordships' House.
I invite the noble Lord and the Procedure Committee to see whether something can be done to remedy the position. Either the committee should eliminate from the Companion that convention, which I believe inhibits the activities of the House, or it should produce a convincing and valuable substitute for it.
I say no more about that and I pass to paragraph 7 of the report which raises questions of more fundamental importance. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the chairman of the committee. I do not think he will mind if I anticipate the view that he will express to your Lordships; namely, that he does not believe this to be a matter for the committee at all. However, it must be a matter for his committee because the concluding sentence of paragraph 7 reads:
"The Committee recommends that this practice be endorsed".
I should have recommended to the committee that it does not endorse paragraph 7.
Perhaps I may refresh the memory of those of your Lordships who have not had an opportunity to see the Select Committee's report. It states:
"Questions for Written Answer on matters within the detailed work delegated to executive agencies are customarily answered by the agencies themselves. However, answers given directly from an agency cannot be printed in the Official Report, which only prints answers from a member of the Government. A formula has therefore been adopted which filters the answer through a member of the Government, allowing the text of the letter to be given in the Official Report without endowing the answer with parliamentary privilege, which confers freedom from legal proceedings on statements by MPs and Lords in Parliament".
This is a very important matter because those who examine that paragraph carefully will observe that a Minister cannot therefore be held responsible for the Written Answer. The whole business of withholding parliamentary privilege from the Answer is to do precisely that. I had the opportunity of speaking on the Bills from the Front Bench in an earlier and younger role. I understood clearly that the establishment of these new agencies would not in any way detract from the Government's responsibility for the Answers that were given to Parliamentary Questions. This matter we are discussing goes beyond that. It means that any agency that replies on behalf of its Minister to a Parliamentary Question must have regard to the fact that no parliamentary privilege attaches to it. I suggest that might result in the Answers that are given being somewhat less forthright than they might normally have been had they been covered by parliamentary privilege. I do not need to leave it to your Lordships' imagination to suggest that. I therefore hope that the Select Committee will take another look at this matter.
I agree that the Government are responsible for this because they have adopted the procedure. I shall be interested to hear today whether a representative of the Government will say that Answers to Questions in another place or here will not be given on the

429
responsibility of Ministers as Ministers. If they cannot say that, I would invite the House as a whole to reject paragraph 7.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I hope I may ask a rather shorter question on the revision of Standing Order 51, paragraph (4), which leaves it to the discretion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or the noble Lord in the Chair to allow the doors to remain open longer than six minutes before a Division. What is the guide for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or the noble Lord in the Chair as regards how much longer the doors should remain open?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I venture to second what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has said about Consolidated Fund Bills. When the previous Consolidated Fund Bill came before your Lordships before Christmas, two noble Lords with exceptional experience of public finance, the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pleaded that there might be occasions when it would be desirable to debate a Consolidated Fund Bill. My plea is that there can be an occasion when its financial implications should be debatable. I say that for two reasons, which are interconnected. The first is that economic and financial circumstances may have changed greatly between the time when your Lordships debate a Finance Bill and the time at the end of the year when the Consolidated Fund Bill is introduced. This year is a very good example because I think the general opinion is that it is extraordinarily difficult to know how things will look economically at the end of the year.
The second reason is that your Lordships' House commands an exceptional knowledge and experience in this field. Among the Members are seven former Chancellors of the Exchequer; four former Chief Secretaries of the Treasury; a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee; a former Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means; a former Governor of the Bank of England; a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England; and a great many other departmental heads who have had intimate knowledge of public finance so far as it affects their departments.
In addition to that, there are a number of noble Lords who bring professional knowledge to bear on problems of public finance. With respect, we should leave the matter open for an appropriate occasion when the financial implications at least of the Consolidated Fund Bill may be debated. There will be possibly many occasions when that is not necessary: for example, when there is an Autumn Budget and a second Finance Bill. However, there will be other occasions when, for the reasons I venture to give, it will be highly desirable. Therefore I second what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce has said—that is, that the matter should not be so categorically closed as it seems to me it is at the moment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the Consolidated Fund. I welcome the provision in paragraph 4 of the document concerning speakers' lists which suggests that names for debates should be given by noon on the previous day and by six p.m. the previous evening on days when the House is sitting next morning. However, as that brings the time forward, I must ask the noble Lord the Lord Chairman how it is intended to promulgate this information. Until it becomes established usage, I can envisage some noble Lords being disappointed at that change. I hope everyone will be informed of it.
I sometimes believe Select Committees feel they have to recommend change otherwise people will not think a committee is doing its job. I feel the procedures of Parliament have been tried and tested over a long period of time and therefore change should only be undertaken after careful consideration. Paragraph 1 relates to the ownership of items on the Order Paper. This deals with the case where a noble Lord has put his name down to a Motion or a Question and is then absent and is unable to notify a substitute in time. The House is given the right to appoint another person to ask the Question. The paragraph states:
"The Committee considers that there may be occasions when the Lord named on the Order Paper has not had an opportunity to authorise a substitute, but when it would be in the interests of the House for the Question or Motion to proceed."
That seems to me to be an impossible caveat. What do the following words mean:
"when it would be in the interests of the House"?
Who makes that decision? What consideration did the Procedure Committee give to this? Did it consider examples of Questions where it would be in the interests of the House to proceed? Did it consider a list of Questions where it would not be in the interests of the House to proceed? This matter constitutes rather a "pig's ear"—but I should not really use that expression as it is not suitable language for your Lordships' House.
This matter seems to me to be such a muddle that I wonder very much whether it is wise to proceed with it. Suppose one day we have three Questions instead of four. Is that the end of the world? Is it not sometimes a luxury for your Lordships, when there are only three Questions, to spend perhaps 12 or 15 minutes on one of them? That might be in the interests of the House. This matter seems to me vague and subjective and I wonder whether we are going down the right road.
I thank my noble friend Lord Bruce for his comments as regards paragraph 7 on Written Answers from the executive agencies. He has explained the implications of that matter. I welcome his explanation because I could not make head nor tail of it. I do not wish to make too much of that because when I was in another place one of the qualifications for entering the Labour Whips' Office was to fail the intelligence test.
Noble Lords: Speak for yourself!
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I do not associate all my noble friends with that remark. However, it certainly applied in my case.
I say again that I wonder what consideration was given to this matter. What kind of estimate has been made as regards the number of insertions that would now appear in Hansard and their length? Would we have impossibly long Written Answers to Questions? I hope we can be given some more information on the research that went into this. If it does not concern us, as my noble friend Lord Bruce remarked, why is the committee endorsing this document? Where do we stand on it? I do not understand it. It is an important matter because executive agencies now have a great deal of power and control over people's lives. What does this mean? Are we going down the right road?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wish to register my unhappiness with paragraph 6 of the report concerning the treatment of Consolidated Fund Bills. As some of your Lordships may recall, I raised the question briefly a few weeks ago during consideration of the last Consolidated Fund Bill. I ask your Lordships to consider very carefully what the Procedure Committee says. The committee quotes with approval the words in the Companion to the Standing Orders:
"It does not offend the privileges of the Commons for the Lords to discuss or even to decide upon Consolidated Fund Bills, but the House has habitually passed such Bills without printing them and without discussion or dissent. It is now a convention that proceedings upon them are taken formally".
It seems illogical to say that because a right has not been exercised for a considerable time it has lapsed. Circumstances change. The matters covered by a Consolidated Fund Bill have become increasingly important in recent years and have posed perhaps even more difficult problems, as noble Lords on both sides of the House are only too well aware.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, your Lordships' House contains people who speak with great authority on matters of finance, business, economics and so on. The Consolidated Fund Bill offers a proper opportunity for that expertise to be deployed. It seems a pity that simply because the right has not been exercised over recent years—as the Companion says—the right should be taken away.
I ask your Lordships to consider a further point. It is well known that there are elements of opinion in this country which wish to dispense with the services of this House, or certainly with most of its membership. It is therefore particularly important that this House should be able to deploy its expert knowledge and to discuss serious matters, particularly on finance and economics, in a way which enables opinion outside the House to realise that your Lordships' House is a considerable body, containing people of the highest knowledge and experience who have something to contribute to the discussion of such matters. To wipe out an opportunity for doing so simply because the right has not been exercised for some time seems to me a somewhat irresponsible line to take. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships' House will feel that the
432
Committee should reconsider its recommendation in this instance and restore to the House the rights which it used to have.
It must be recognised that times have changed. The demands of public opinion change and circumstances change with the years. Again, simply to freeze out the possibility of debate because it was not thought useful to exercise it in the past seems to me an irresponsible line to take. I hope that your Lordships will give serious consideration to the matter. We are dealing with one debate a year; the Establishment need not worry too much about calls on parliamentary time. However, it is a very valuable debate and it would be a pity if your Lordships' House were, of its own decision, to forgo the right to deploy its knowledge and allow the public to see and hear its knowledge on these matters. I hope that the proposal will be reconsidered.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with everything that has been said by every noble Lord so far. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the inherent danger of adopting recommendations of the Procedure Committee on the nod where curtailment of your Lordships' privileges relating to debate is involved. I refer in particular to paragraph 6 of the report, and accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said about paragraph 7.
The concept that an established precedent is lost by disuse could fetter freedom of debate in circumstances where debate could serve a useful and constructive purpose. This is a question of some importance which transcends this particular occasion or this particular report. For, if disuse is to be elevated by the Procedure Committee into a convention not to use, that will result in a Humpty-Dumpty approach which turns the system of precedent on its head.
A recent example of the approach is that adopted by the Procedure Committee in its second report of 1990–91. I mention it to illustrate that this is not the first occasion on which the approach has been adopted within living memory. It concerned an amendment which was tabled to extend the Long Title of a Public Bill. The amendment was entirely in order and was accepted by the Table as such. Paragraph 6 of that report gives the reasoning behind the approach. It reads:
"The last occasion when a permissive instruction to extend the scope of a public bill was passed in the House of Lords was in 1899. In 1906 such an instruction was moved, but the motion was withdrawn. No similar instruction was tabled in the House until April 1991. A motion to extend the scope of the War Crimes Bill was tabled, but it was not moved because the bill was refused a second reading. The Companion suggests that the procedure has fallen into desuetude, but the precedents continue to be listed in Erskine May".
I shall not trouble your Lordships with the findings of the committee, which were adverse. They are set out in paragraph 7 of the report. The recommendation was accepted by the House, virtually on the nod. That precedent has now gone.
Is this the right approach? I agree with the suggestions which have been made today by noble

433
Lords who have far more knowledge and experience than I that this matter should receive further consideration.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I should like to turn to paragraph 7 and approach the matter from a different direction from that taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Perhaps I may suggest the following example to illustrate my reading of the report. A noble Lord receives a letter which alleges that an individual has failed to pay his social security or is employing illegally a Filipino child minder. To conjure up a name, let us suppose that the person is a Mr. Carter-Ruck. If the noble Lord then writes to the agency, as I understand it the response will come via a Minister. If that reply says that in response to the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, Mr. Carter-Ruck was breaking the law, then as I read the report I, as a Member of this House, would not be protected because parliamentary privilege has been removed. If it has been removed both from the Minister and an individual Member of the House, perhaps there is something wrong. I may not have understood the issue. If I had never entered a Whips' Office in another place, I might have had the same disability as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. I should like an answer on this point. It seems to me somewhat odd and, as I read the report, rather dangerous.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I refer to the first paragraph of the report and to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I draw the attention of the noble Lord and the House to the fact that the paragraph refers not only to Questions but also Motions. It may be very much in the interests of the House that a Motion is discussed. Many noble Lords from all over the country may have assembled to discuss it but the proposed mover of the Motion may not be present although he would not have known that in advance.
Some years ago I was sitting on the Bench opposite when the next item on the Order Paper was the Farriers Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Newall. He was inexplicably detained. I tried to save the Bill. The way to do that was obscure because I could not speak on the Motion since it had not been moved; nor could I speak away from it because that would have been out of order. I was able to speak for two-and-a-half minutes about nothing and the Bill was brought in. But that is not a satisfactory procedure.
The procedure suggested in the report is the same as that which allows a noble Lord to withdraw an amendment during Committee proceedings in the House. The Question is, "Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?". If a single noble Lord objects, it cannot be withdrawn; it must he voted on. It seems to me that this provision slightly extends an existing and precedented procedure to facilitate the proceedings of the House when necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to paragraph 6. He said that it was a great pity
434
that committees felt that they had to change things. I merely draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that the proposal by the committee is not to change procedures but to keep them as they are.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps I may add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Since I have been a Member of this House the Consolidated Fund Bill has never been debated. I believe that it would be a great mistake, without a great deal of consideration, for your Lordships' House to change the position on this matter to allow such a debate to take place even once a year. On occasions there are two Consolidated Fund Bills in a year. Therefore such debates might occur twice in a year.
Traditions in this House are extremely important. We are largely governed by conventions. If we did not rely on the conventions in the Companion to the Standing Orders we would virtually have to rewrite the volume to a much more expanded edition. I hope that after the short debate today the recommendation of the Procedure Committee will not be rejected.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the easier points first. That description may apply to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, regarding the revision of Standing Order 51: how will the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or anyone who has taken his place, know that noble Lords have been roused in the absence of the bells? That is not likely to occur frequently. I have consulted with my predecessor and his predecessor; the bells had not failed to ring in over 20 years. It was presumably therefore my fault that the bells failed to ring on 29th October. We hope that it will not happen again.
In the event, Doorkeepers flush through the covers where Peers may be present and with good fortune everyone will be roused. If it came to a very close Division, the House might well wish to refer the matter in question back. However, I do not believe that it is a matter about which we need worry too much. On the previous occasion an extra three minutes was given and it is thought that everyone who was in the precincts of the House managed to reach the Chamber.
Several noble Lords have referred to ownership of items on the Order Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, that covers not only Questions but also Motions. The matter arose for the consideration of the Procedure Committee as a result of an incident on 10th June last. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, came to the rescue. He moved a Motion in order to save a debate which otherwise would have collapsed. The noble Lord was in fact in breach of standing orders in so doing but was nevertheless regarded as the hero of the hour. A number of noble Lords would not otherwise have been able to speak in the debate. Noble Lords who were participating in the subsequent business might not have been present. Therefore it seems to us that it would be a good plan that this new procedure should be introduced. It will enable a Question or a Motion to be put provided that the unanimous leave of the House is given. That would

435
prevent a noble Lord hijacking somebody else's Question or Motion. I commend the recommendation to the House.
I refer now to the more complex matters of Consolidated Fund Bills and the convention by which they are not debated. I am glad that no noble Lord suggested that the convention should not be abided by. It is as strong a force in most of our minds as if it were in standing orders. However, I have heard what has been said strongly in all quarters of the House —that over the years things have changed. Perhaps the House might wish—several noble Lords have suggested it—that the matter should be referred back to the Procedure Committee.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I emphasise that the convention has been the custom of the House for many years. My noble friend Lord Denham mentioned that it was so for as many years as he can remember, and that is quite a few. Therefore it is not a change that should be made too lightly. There may be other ways forward for having debates about financial matters, not necessarily on the three occasions each year when the Consolidated Fund Bill is brought to the House. Naturally the Procedure Committee will be very pleased to reconsider the matter at its next meeting. If the House cares to allow the issue to stand in the report of the Select Committee for the time being I shall ensure that it is on the agenda of its next meeting.
On agencies, I refer to the mechanism devised for the benefit of the Members of both Houses which enables the reply that a Member of either House may have received from the chief executive of an agency to receive greater dissemination. The only way that one can introduce that reply into the Official Report is via the mechanism of a Minister. I suggest that this matter is not the responsibility of the Procedure Committee. The Minister is not taking responsibility for that reply. He merely provides the method by which the reply can be disseminated more widely. I believe that it is useful for that purpose. However, the principle as to whether there should be ministerial responsibility for what the chief executive of an agency states is a matter for the Government, I suggest, and not for the Procedure Committee.
I hope that I have answered the points raised by noble Lords. Perhaps I may be reminded of any that I have failed to answer. I commend the report to the House.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I refer to the point of privilege regarding a reply. For example, if the reply states that the noble Lord, Lord X, alleged that Mr. So-and-so broke the law, is that still protected?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, my understanding is that if the chief executive of the agency states that, he is not protected.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House. I should like to say one or two words in support of the noble Lord the
436
Chairman of Committees. I fully accept and share with him the undertaking that these matters will be referred back to the committee to be examined to see whether we have them right.
One or two of the points which have been raised could be said to help us reach the most satisfactory solution and I wish to say a word or two about paragraphs 6 and 7. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will be delighted to know that the Procedure Committee was not seeking to change anything in its comments in paragraph 6. We wished to suggest that the arrangements that had been agreed to in the Procedure Committee's Second Report of 1991–92 were continued. They have been reasonably successful up to now, from what I gather, but I recognise that things have changed.
Perhaps I may give one or two reasons why I wonder whether the Consolidated Fund Bill is necessarily the best way in which noble Lords should raise matters. That is at the heart of the problem. I totally agree that we must have adequate ways for noble Lords to raise issues which they believe are important and I wish to facilitate that. The difficulty with doing it under the Consolidated Fund Bill is that, first, other noble Lords have no idea what subjects will be raised. If a noble Lord rises, no notice is given. That means that other noble Lords will not have come prepared to comment on those points, although they may wish to do so. Also important is that Ministers will not have come prepared to give an answer to the noble Lord who raises a question. However, Questions and Motions which are put down with proper notice are a way of obtaining Ministerial responses from Ministers who have properly briefed themselves to answer those Questions.
Therefore, while the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill occurs not once but three times a year—and no doubt my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will think that an advantage—perhaps the time spent on those debates is as well used as additional time in raising these matters, if that is what the House wishes. They will be raised in such a way that the House and Ministers will have notice and there can therefore be a better debate.
If the House thinks they are sensible, those are some of issues which the Procedure Committee might examine when it considers the matter again, with of course everything else that is said in this debate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? Would the difficulty which he sees of straight debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill be resolved if it were understood that noble Lords intending to speak on the Bill should give to the Minister concerned and perhaps generally to the House some notice of the subjects that they propose to raise?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend's suggestion is worth considering. I prefer not to say here and now which is the best solution, I was just indicating some of the matters which the Procedure Committee ought to consider. Everything said in this debate is worthy of consideration, and we shall look at it again if that is what your Lordships wish.

437
With regard to Written Answers from the executive agencies, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is unhappy about the policy that the Government adopted in the first place. The policy that the Government adopted was not the matter before the Procedure Committee. The committee was considering the consequences as regards informing your Lordships of important letters that had been replied to by agencies as a result of the Government's policy. I should be happy, if the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question, to do my best to answer him as regards the policy, and on how best to inform the House of the points that arise from these Answers. In dealing with the situation of executive agencies and the number of significant Answers from them, I believe that the Procedure Committee came to the right solution.
As has been said many times from this Dispatch Box, the replies from the executive agencies do not mean that Ministerial responsibility for the executive agencies is in any way lessened. It is a more effective way of dealing with matters. However, that is a separate question from the way in which the House should be informed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Spending
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about public spending. The Government are committed to a rigorous approach to public spending. We set out in our manifesto for the last election our objective of reducing the share of national income taken by the public sector.
"As part of this, on 14th May last year, following a discussion on public spending, the Cabinet decided that once the 1992 public spending round was completed I should be commissioned as Chief Secretary to conduct a long-term exercise involving in depth reviews of the public spending programmes of each department of state. It was anticipated that these reviews would take much of the period of this Parliament to complete.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister mentioned the exercise in a speech last week. He noted how easy it was for the state to settle into habits of spending which outlast their purpose and outrun their budgets.
"The exercise will require Secretaries of State in each department to conduct searching studies of their programmes in co-operation with me. The process will start this year with four of the largest programmes. The departments involved are the Home Office, and the Departments of Health, Education and Social Security. The particular aim is to distinguish clearly between the essential costs
438
of high priority spending, which we will continue to fund, and avoidable spending which we cannot afford.
"Over the course of the Parliament we shall be looking at the direction spending on every programme is taking and whether its purpose remains right for the 1990s. We will be seeking to identify areas where better targeting can be achieved or from which the public sector can withdraw altogether.
"These fundamental reviews are not a substitute for the traditional process of public expenditure control. Rather they are intended to reinforce it. Their focus will be on the medium to longer term, though our aim is that their provisional findings should inform the next spending round in the summer.
"Madam Speaker, making progress towards our fiscal objectives requires us to exercise tight control over public spending. We have an absolute duty to ensure full value for money for the taxpayer from the £250 billion which we spend each year. We shall fulfil that duty."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place. When we read the Statement and listen to it, we see such wording as, for example:
"to distinguish … between the essential costs of high priority spending … and avoidable spending which we cannot afford".
When, in addition, the Statement talks about "better targeting", the noble Earl will understand that we are not unreasonably suspicious of what the Government are up to in this review. It is an admission of defeat by this Government, a panic response to a failure of economic policy after 14 years of Conservative Government. No one on these Benches can fail to be aware that the party opposite has governed the country now for 14 years. We now have a budget deficit running at £1 billion per week; a trade deficit forecast of over £19 billion for 1993; over 3 million people are out of work. And the Government choose now to announce a major review of expenditure. Is the economic situation so beyond the Chancellor's control that this separate review must be carried out?
It is not even a review of the Government's economic policy. It is not an attempt to take positive steps to end the recession; it is not a review of industrial policy; it is not an attempt to formulate a strategy to revitalise manufacturing industry; it is not a plan to reduce the unprecedented trade deficit and to reassure those who live in fear of unemployment. It is a review of expenditure.
Where will that review fall? Who will be worst affected by it? Not the richest—never the richest—whose wealth has grown under the Government; once again it will fall on the poor, the sick and the elderly.
Ministers have already said that the future of child benefit will be closely scrutinised—it may be taxed; that the private sector will play a bigger role in providing hospital services; prescription charges are

439
set to rise; workfare—which was smiled on by Mr. Lilley over the weekend—will force unemployed people into low paid work and force workers into unemployment. Further changes are to be made to the state earnings related pension; private insurance against unemployment and sickness will be encouraged; perhaps the basic state pension will be means tested; and invalidity benefit may be taxed. After pouring scorn upon this Party last April for daring to suggest that taxing the better-off in this country was a legitimate way to maintain public investment, the Government now seem set to raise taxes and to cut public expenditure as well.
With refreshing candour—I must give him that—the Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Lilley, admitted over the weekend that the Government may depart from their manifesto promises. I give the basis on which the Government now apparently approach their manifesto. Mr. Lilley said that pledges should be kept if possible. I emphasise, "if possible". Pledges made in the manifesto as recently as 10 months ago should be kept if possible. That is the position in which the Government now find themselves.
That manifesto promised economic growth, reduced taxes, and a commitment to child benefit, basic state retirement pensions and a balanced budget. Do they still stand by those manifesto undertakings? Or is the Statement yet another indication that they were elected on the basis of a false prospectus?
Growth seems last on the Government's list of ways to balance the books and end the recession. There is a vacuum on this matter at the heart of government policy. Some Conservatives who never approved of the welfare state seem to be seizing this opportunity now to dismantle it. If they have their way, this will be not a classless society, but a two-tier society. There will be two tiers, not just in healthcare, but in unemployment and invalidity benefit, and in old-age pensions. There will be those who have to take workfare places and those who can afford to contract out of state provision.
Now is not the time to review expenditure in a last ditch attempt to save Government money at an immeasurable cost to the people of this country. Now is the time to try to reduce unemployment and reduce the trade deficit, not by cutting expenditure, and not by punishing the poor yet again, but by investing in industry, capital projects and jobs to reduce the high cost to the Treasury of high unemployment. That is the way to recovery and in the long term to reduce the budget deficit.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. But I also express anxiety about its implications.
The Government have just completed an arduous review of expenditure. They are now about to launch into another one. Although it is explained that this is to look at the medium-and the longer term, nonetheless it looks as if the Government are to devote an undue amount of their time to a permanent review of expenditure. How much time will they have left to govern the country and get on with the growth
440
developments to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred? So there is worry about how this fits in with the normal review of expenditure rounds.
Secondly, there is anxiety, as the changes will affect so many people in so many walks of life, as to how public the inquiry will be. How much will people know about the pros and cons which the Government will consider in coming to their conclusions and which, if cuts are to be made, could potentially reduce the assistance given to many groups of the population.
Thirdly, how does the Statement link up with the pledges made in the manifesto? The point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Newspaper articles have suggested that proposals emerging from this review will be introduced in the next Parliament. If that is correct, it will still mean that we will have the election pledges to consider. We should like to know exactly where we are on that point.
Finally, I should like to raise the question of private sector finance, which can help in many ways to maintain the impetus in various directions of public expenditure. But in my experience here I declare an interest because I am in the business of promoting energy efficiency—when we have tried to invest private capital in improving the energy efficiency of installations in public buildings and public works, the Treasury rules mean that this should count against the capital allocation of the body concerned. So the third party financing, which is how this is described, has very little impact.
If the private sector is to be brought in, the Treasury rules must be very substantially modified. There are many areas of public expenditure, particularly in buildings, construction and energy efficiency, where the private sector can help. But the rules need to be modified accordingly.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was a little surprised at the half-hearted welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the Leader of the Opposition in this House, gave to the Statement. He said that now was not the time to look at expenditure. I think now is exactly the time to look at expenditure. It is only through an exercise of this kind that we can deliver our manifesto commitments to reduce public spending as a proportion of national income.
When one looks at the public spending of the four departments that are the subject of this initial exercise—with education at £10 billion; the Home Office at about £6 billion; health at about £30 billion (although that has increased by 60 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79); and social security at the high cost that it is—it was a very prudent undertaking to look very carefully at the amount of public spending.
The purpose of the exercise is to achieve better targeting of the scarce finances that are available. It is right to look at good housekeeping. That is what every sensible company does on a regular basis, and there is no reason why government should not do exactly the same. We should look for better housekeeping; we should look to eliminate waste; and we should see whether better targeting can be achieved. We need to question whether programmes meet the needs of the 1990s and beyond, and whether there are some areas from which the Government should withdraw. I put it

441
to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that not to do so is to let down the taxpayer who presents the money for the Government to spend on the old and the poor. It is only through better targeting that we provide the better services for them.
I welcome some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. We welcome an input into this exercise. He mentioned in particular Treasury rules. I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary. I believe that I answered many of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when I dealt with the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many who definitely do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that this is not a time for control of public expenditure? On the contrary, many of those who went through this experience years ago know very well that it is just the occasion on which the firmest grip on public expenditure by government is required. It is for that reason that we very much welcome the Statement and the indication that the Government are facing up to this difficult problem.
It is always painful to restrain public expenditure, much of which goes in popular directions. But a government which do not go for control of public expenditure when faced with the present type of situation, are failing in their duty. I am very glad that the Statement has been made.
I add only one point of detail. My noble friend will be aware that legal aid, although a relatively small item in the national budget, is an item which, in proportion, has increased more over the past few years. I hope that the Government will take a very firm view on the growth of legal aid.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend has said. He has great experience in these matters as a former Treasury Minister. Of course it is very much easier in some respects not to tackle a problem, especially a difficult problem like public expenditure, but a problem must in the end be faced up to. That is exactly why the Government are carrying out this review. I note what my noble friend said with regard to legal aid. I shall certainly pass that on to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it ill becomes the noble Earl and the present Government to talk about the control of public expenditure and to presume to lecture my noble friend on the Front Bench. Is he aware that, when the last Labour Government left office, public expenditure as a percentage of gross national product was 38 per cent? It is now touching 42 per cent. So we know who better controls public expenditure. But is he further aware that the Government are the authors of this country's problems? By running a fixed exchange rate with far too high a value for the pound against other currencies they have destroyed at least 1 million jobs and have therefore reduced the country's income, or the income
442
that the Treasury gets from people in employment. They have been the authors of the problems of this country.
Finally, is he aware that the reports of this public expenditure review have caused great worry and indeed fear among the section of the population who need most protection —that is, the old? They, having seen the income from their savings slashed through low interest rates, now fear that this Government will means-test the pensions which they have paid for throughout their lives through the National Insurance system. Will he give an assurance—a firm assurance —that pensioners will not under any circumstances be disadvantaged, that they will continue to enjoy their pensions without means tests and that they will share in the prosperity, if there is going to be any, of the country by ensuring that there will be a continued annual uprating of pensions from now on and into the foreseeable future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am pleased to give my support to the request by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for reduced public spending as a share of national income. I agree with him that we need to get it down from its present level. We need to get it down from the level that he remembers under the Labour Government. It is too high and therefore it needs to be looked at. One of the ways to look at it is through the review which my right honourable friend is about to undertake.
With regard to the noble Lord's second point on the ERM, I do not think that he would want me to comment any further. We have debated it across the Floor of the House on many occasions. I am sure that there will be a suitable opportunity to discuss it again. On the noble Lord's third point, let me say to him so that the situation is clear. The manifesto commitments with regard to child benefit and pensions uprating will be honoured.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as this necessary Statement is to be followed by a debate on the Community policy on migration, can my noble friend say how much we are already spending on unemployment?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have to say to my noble friend that I cannot answer his question without a little notice on that point.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Statement, which sets out, in effect, good management practice. Every organisation should from time to time ask the following two questions. Is what we are doing really necessary; and, if it is really necessary, are we doing it in the right way? I see these fundamental reviews as looking at those two things. It is gratifying that the public sector is now doing what a lot of people in the commercial sector have been doing for years.
I should like to ask the Minister two questions. Is it reasonable that a fundamental review should be carried out by the department itself? I submit that any fundamental review should be carried out by people with, and I quote, "Open ears, open eyes and open minds". I am not saying that the people in the

443
department do not have those, but it would be much easier for people to come in from outside to have a look. I am not necessarily saying that they should be consultants either, but perhaps there should be a task force of people from other parts of the Civil Service to carry out these fundamental reviews. I am not questioning the impartiality, I hasten to say, but I think it would be easier for other people not tremendously involved in the particular area to carry out the review.
Secondly, is it realistic to expect any really valuable results in such a short period of time? If, as has been set out in the Statement, the Government want the results to contribute to the summer analysis of the public expenditure review, I think that that is too short a time. I fear that it will probably be doing a more scanty job than is required.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's support. She is right to say that this is just normal good management practice which every-day business does on a regular basis and that there is no reason why government should not undertake it too. With regard to her question about the use of outside people—I say "people" advisedly so as not to use the word "consultants"—it is up to each Secretary of State to decide whether to use outside help to look at this problem. I shall draw that point to my right honourable friend's attention.
With regard to the results, the purpose of the exercise is more to look at the medium to long term of a department's expenditure. But if there are lessons to be learnt in the short term that could affect the normal annual review, then of course it is vital that we learn those and take them into account.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in the Statement the Minister gave figures for the three highest spending departments—and they were quite substantial figures indeed. But he did not make any reference to the £7 billion plus that went down the plughole on Black Wednesday, which was due solely to an action of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can he tell us whether the loss by their actions of that enormous sum of money will affect the procedure that is now to take place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord said that these figures for the expenditure of the four departments that are to be the subject of the initial review were big figures. Indeed it is because they are so big that it is quite right that the Government should look at them urgently. With regard to his second question, which was very considerably wide of the purpose of the Statement, it is a matter that we have debated in the House before.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that this announcement will be widely welcomed by those who know that there is a tendency in government for expenditure to increase without positive decisions being made? There is an even greater tendency—we hear it in your Lordships' House every day at Questions—for the party opposite and others to demand ever-increasing expenditure
444
without their having any concept of the total amount of spending we can have in a growing and vibrant economy.
One point worries me: I wonder whether my noble friend can help me. I would be concerned if I thought that the Treasury alone was to conduct this review. Its track record on controlling public expenditure over time and on highlighting the priorities requiring public expenditure has not been a singularly successful one. I wonder whether my noble friend can help me as to exactly who inside government will carry out the review.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support on the principle of the review. He is right to say that it should be undertaken. As to his concern, it will be the Secretary of State in charge of the specific department who will be in the lead on the review. Of course the Treasury has an interest—that is right—and, as a former Treasury Minister, I can say that it does a pretty good job overall.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am surprised that he is surprised about the half-hearted response of my noble friend Lord Richard? Judging from ministerial statements this last few weeks, we are very suspicious on this side of the House about the aim and object of the review. In view of the fact that the effect of tax reliefs on the PSBR is exactly the same as that of benefits, except that they affect the better off, will tax reliefs be brought within the orbit of the review?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know well the expertise of the noble Lord in these matters and I tread with special care when discussing this topic with him. But there is a big social security expenditure of £80 billion a year—nearly one-third of government expenditure—and it has been growing by more than 3 per cent. a year in real terms since 1978–79. Therefore any look at public expenditure must take into account the social security expenditure. I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, regarding our manifesto commitments.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that after some 40 years it is a little remarkable, especially after receiving £100 billion in North Sea oil revenue and realising public assets to the tune of £49.5 billion, that the Government should now be put to this pretty pass? Will the noble Earl bear in mind that his Party has always taken expenditure on ideological terms? The expenditures supported ideologically are always referred to in terms of taxpayers' money; those of which they approve are normally referred to by way of percentages of total income.
In view of the parlous position in which the country admittedly now finds itself, and in view of the noble Earl's devotion to examining everything in great detail with a view to assessing cost benefits and value for money, will he please examine in detail the justification for the payment of taxpayers' money to the tune of £1.75 billion every year to the European

445
Community, which cannot control its own expenditure and is subject to widespread fraud? Can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that that will be examined and put to the same rigorous test as any other expenditure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I welcome the comment of the noble Lord regarding our ideological look at expenditure. That is why I am proud that spending on the health service has increased by 60 per cent. in real terms. The noble Lord and I have debated fraud in the EC on numerous occasions and he knows full well the measures that we have instigated to try to mitigate that problem. He will be aware of, and be the first on the opposite side to congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the reduction of the aspirations of the European Community as to expenditure in the recent agreement.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am not against a review of public spending per se. Indeed, I hope that, if targets are reached, they will include the people whom I represent—those with a mental handicap or learning disability. On the other hand, two points were raised by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to which I should like to refer.
The Minister made a reference to the provisional findings that will be acted upon in the Autumn Budget. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked how public the debate about public spending will be. I hope that we shall be given time to debate the issue in public 'twixt the Summer Recess and the Autumn Statement. Too often we have found that many changes in legislation are announced to us just before the Recess of this House or the other place and we are not given time for public debate or, as it were, to get our act together.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, realises that one of the purposes of the review is to see whether we can target the money that we are spending—a large sum per day —in a better way. However, he may be mistaken in thinking that it will require changes in legislation. There may be changes in legislation as a consequence of the survey being conducted by my right honourable friend hut, on the other hand, there may not.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given that this is what I understand my right honourable friend the Prime Minister called the "year of charities", will my noble friend seek to ensure that all Ministers conducting those separate inquiries establish what contributions their departments in the past made over a period of years to the voluntary sector? Can they establish also whether that proportion has diminished and, if so, whether that diminution is desirable?
While I accept that there are activities in the voluntary sector which do not deserve public sector support, there are many activities which are vital to the wellbeing of our society and which the voluntary sector can pursue far more effectively than government. That is partly because the people doing it are not "them" but "us"; partly because their activities generate income from somewhere other than the taxpayer's pocket.
446
There appears to be an undeclared and possibly unconscious change in government policy towards the voluntary sector to which I have alluded in previous debates and to which other noble Lords have referred. It is regrettable and probably unintentional. That results in a reduction in the total amount of government contribution to the voluntary sector. Can my noble friend undertake that that will be part of the review?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the review will be a wide-ranging one. I take full note of what my noble friend says with regard to charities. It was always something about which he and I agreed—that there are people outside government, particularly those in the voluntary sector, who can assist government in helping many people. I have many memories of the work the voluntary sector did in my time at the Home Office, in the Department of the Environment and particularly in the Foreign Office. Without that help we should not have achieved the progress that we did. I shall therefore draw my noble friend's comments to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Minister indicated that the figure of £7 billion given by my noble friend Lord Dean was wrong. What is the right figure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I said that we had debated the matter on a previous occasion and now was not the time to continue the debate.

Migration Policy: ECC Report
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Community Policy on Migration (10th Report. H.L. Paper 35).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the issue of migration within the Community—indeed, within the wider Europe—is one of general concern. It presents some of the most difficult challenges facing us at the end of the century.
At the time that Sub-Committee C started its inquiry the debate within the Community was under way and is still continuing. The Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs of the European Parliament was preparing its own report on migration and asylum. We had the benefit of hearing evidence from the chairman of that committee, Mr. Amédée Turner, QC, one of our British MEPs. In addition, I participated in a meeting on the subject in Brussels attended by MEPs and representatives from parliaments of other member states.
In the UK, the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee conducted an inquiry into migration control at the external borders of the Community. We were able to draw on its published evidence as well as on earlier reports of your Lordships' Select Committee. Only last week I was in Strasbourg at the Assembly of the Council of Europe. Many of the debates were concerned with issues of migration and the integration of immigrants. There was, therefore,

447
much information available which the committee has tried to bring together in earlier sections of the report as background.
Two weeks ago your Lordships had a long debate on the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, a subject to which the House will be returning tomorrow in Committee. That inquiry was conducted between the first Asylum Bill, which was considered by another place before the general election and then fell, and the introduction of the current Bill. Although we tried to avoid duplication, there was inevitably an overlap in the subject matter covered.
The timing of the inquiry proved somewhat difficult, with delays arising from the availability of Community documentation, then the interval of the general election and your Lordships' consideration of the committee structure arising from the Jellicoe Report. Thus, the collection of evidence and the examination of witnesses had to be undertaken in a matter of a few weeks during the summer. Nevertheless, we were much helped and impressed by that evidence. We are grateful to all involved for the care with which it was presented.
The committee is also indebted to our Clerk, Mr John Ingram, for his tireless efforts on its behalf, Mrs. Eileen Denza, the legal adviser to the Select Committee, and Mr Richard Plender, QC, our specialist adviser. Both advisers helped us through the complications of Community legislation and its interrelationship with relevant international conventions. On a personal basis, I am grateful to all Members of the Select Committee for their help and support throughout the inquiry. I am also grateful to the Government for the welcome they have given to the report in their written response that has been made available for the debate today. There is much common ground between the committee and the Government, although I should like to press the Minister on a number of points.
Two issues were uppermost in the consideration of the committee throughout the inquiry: one was the nature and extent of the problem and the other was the Community's competence to act on the issue. The committee shared the general consensus apparent in both the evidence and in other documentation before it of the growing need for closer co-operation and co-ordination within the Community towards immigration from third countries. It accepted the distinction between long-term policies and short-term crisis management to respond to disturbances in Eastern Europe and the developing world, particularly Africa. The report concentrates upon the former. The committee recognised that at the present time the only practicable way forward was by intergovernmental co-operation, although it was noted that the Maastricht Treaty provided for some shared competence between member states and the Commission.
One problem of which the committee soon became aware was the much greater need for transparency in the discussions taking place under the inter-governmental procedure. The Home Office witnesses
448
advised us that an ad hoc working group on immigration had been set up during the United Kingdom presidency in 1986 and operated on an inter-governmental basis—that is, outside the Treaty of Rome. That meant that its documentation was not open to the same kind of scrutiny by member parliaments as proposals emanating from the Commission, let alone the scrutiny afforded to Bills in the British Parliament. That was an issue raised both by witnesses in the United Kingdom and by European parliamentarians. The committee's recommendation that Council of Ministers statements on the issue should be reported orally to Parliament was a minimal request.
In its response, the Government accept that more information should be given to Parliament but are not committed at this stage to any precise arrangements. Perhaps the Minister can throw a little more light on the Government's thinking. It is vital to the public's understanding of very sensitive problems, as well as to the accountability of government to Parliament, that means of bringing these matters into the public domain should be devised. I hope that the Minister is able to comment further on this matter.
At paragraph 86 of the report the Select Committee make a number of suggestions about priorities in the work of the intergovernmental groups. I refer to the issue of fair treatment of long-stay immigrants who have not acquired nationality of a member state. This matter may not be so difficult in the United Kingdom as in some other states where legally resident immigrants can remain indefinitely without being able to acquire nationality and whose children born in that country are in a similar position. Nevertheless, even in the United Kingdom long-stay immigrants, who may have contributed considerably to our society, do not enjoy the same freedom of movement in the community as do nationals. I note that the Government intend to bear in mind the Select Committee's recommendation that after a period of at least 10 years the same rights should be extended to long-stay immigrants as to citizens. I hope that the Government will press our partners on this matter.
The Select Committee diverges from the Government on the issue of binding legislation to deal with racism and xenophobia. That is our principal conclusion and recommendation. At paragraph 79 of the report we describe the connection that we perceive between the problems of immigration and manifestations of racism and xenophobia in Europe. We recommend that the Community should take powers under the treaty to outlaw racism and xenophobia. It seems to the Select Committee to be entirely appropriate that the European Community as an outward-looking, multi-racial and multi-cultural community should take this step and reinforce the efforts of those in member states who are struggling to resist the re-emergence of racism in all its forms. The suggestion that the United Kingdom should take the initiative is based partly on the proposition that we among the member states have experienced immigration earlier than some of our continental partners. We have had the advantage of the operation of race relations legislation.
We believe that that legislation, despite its acknowledged imperfections, will present a useful contribution to a common framework of Community law against racism. We also believe that there will be support from the European Parliament and member states for the proposal which is relevant to the present situation in the Balkans and elsewhere. Agreement was reached on a similar issue only last week in Strasbourg.
I am sorry that the Government do not accept that the European Community has competence in this field. There was a very strong conviction on the part of some of the witnesses, particularly those from the Commission for Racial Equality, that the power was already there under the Treaty of Rome. That was amplified by legal opinion to the Commission for Racial Equality dated 26th June 1991. That is referred to on pages 63 and 64 of the evidence. I suppose that the question of competence is one that may be resolved by the European Court; but to obviate that and clarify the position beyond doubt, the Select Committee has recommended that an opportunity should be sought for the Treaty to be revised to that effect. We believe that the United Kingdom is the appropriate country to raise that issue. The response from the Government is disappointing. I hope that in the light of the discussion they may be persuaded to change their minds.
There are other detailed policy recommendations which largely relate to subjects that are likely to be handled in inter-governmental groups. We were particularly anxious that the Council of Ministers should not overlook the problems facing such small but important groups as unaccompanied children and the dependants of non-Community nationals who lose their spouse or breadwinner by reason of death, divorce or separation. No doubt the House will turn to matters of this kind in its detailed consideration of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
We recognise that a Community policy on migration would involve the necessity for some kind of machinery to ensure uniform interpretation of its body of common rules, whether those arose from treaty provisions or conventions and agreements covering the treatment of migrants. Although the European Court seems a natural home for a tribunal of this kind, it seemed to us that the nature and number of likely appeals, and the particular problems of those making them, would require a specialist body to deal with them. The Government, in their response, do not comment on this. Even if the Government rule out the competence of the Community in this area, there is surely still a need for a uniform interpretation of matters arising from conventions and agreements under the third pillar.
However, on the whole question of common rules, the Select Committee has a real reservation. It trusts that this method of reaching decisions will not be regarded as an opportunity to level downwards. In the course of taking evidence, there was a great fear among witnesses that the Dublin Convention and the common visa list might lead exactly to this. I hope that the Minister might be able to reassure the House on this matter.
Finally, I turn to the distinction that I made at the beginning between long-term Community policy and crisis management. The question of aid policies featured in much of the evidence. The Select Committee accepted the need and relevance of short-term aid to crisis areas, including aid to those developing countries who find themselves the recipients of refugee inflows. However, we saw long-term aid to the developing countries as an entirely different matter with its own separate moral, humanitarian and economic imperatives.
While every encouragement should be given to would be migrants to stay at home through the arrangement of trade measures and the application of know-how techniques and the like, we shared the scepticism of those who felt that this would do little in the short term to halt migration, and that Europe, with its internal market, would continue to be a magnet to migrants of all kinds. My Lords, I commend the report to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Community Policy on Migration (10th Report. H.L. Paper 35).—(Baroness Lockwood.)
4.34 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the clear way in which she has introduced this report. I had the pleasure of serving on the sub-committee that conducted the inquiry under the able chairmanship of the noble Baroness, and I am glad to support the conclusions and recommendations of the report. The introduction explains how member states have become increasingly concerned by the build-up of migratory pressures from eastern Europe and developing countries, and by the consequences for their national immigration policies of the freer movement of people that will accompany the internal market.
The report also tells us in paragraph 83 why
"Given an absence of internal barriers to free movement, and an expressed commitment of the great majority of the membership of the Community to closer co-operation in the social policy field, it seems entirely appropriate that the Community should seek a common approach to questions of immigration policy as it is already doing in the case of asylum seekers".
Concurrently concern has been expressed in the European Parliament and elsewhere about the lack of public discussion of these matters, and that is the first point on which I should like to dwell. In their evidence to Sub-Committee C the present arrangements for co-operative action were criticised by a number of witnesses for the way in which consultations were conducted and decisions taken, and the lack of regard for the need for Community policy to be subject to democratic scrutiny. The Runnymede Trust and the Commission for Racial Equality were particularly critical of the way in which business is conducted in inter-governmental groups discussing immigration policy matters.
I should like to express my strong support for the committee's view that the policy issues and decisions taken in respect of responses to migration matters

451
must be well understood by the general public and be adequately considered by the European and national parliaments. In that connection I am glad to endorse the recommendation that statements to the British Parliament about European Community ministerial meetings on immigration questions should be made orally rather than merely in writing.
In paragraph 86 of the report we say that in seeking greater transparency and accountability in the formation of Community immigration policy, we accept that,
"because of differing national traditions and experience in this area the most realistic route at present for progress in detail is by intergovernmental cooperation."
I was a party to that conclusion, but would nevertheless like to express the reservation that that co-operation must be validated by results, or in my view it will need to be stiffened by legislation.
That brings me to my next point, for there is one respect in which the committee has concluded that legislation is already required—and the noble Baroness referred to this—and I welcome the recommendation warmly. All of us, but especially those like me who are old enough to have fought in the last war, will have viewed with horror recent evidence of racism and xenophobia, particularly but not exclusively in eastern Germany. That unwelcome development helps to explain why we say in paragraph 88 that as part of a constructive approach to a Community immigration policy there should be a formal treaty commitment against racial discrimination and xenophobia.
My noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, who is to speak later, is better qualified than I am to expand on that theme, but clearly this country's Race Relations Act affords a good example of what could be done on a Community-wide basis. It is indeed with that model in mind that the committee recommended that the Government should take an early opportunity to press for the introduction of Community legislation on racism and xenophobia based on United Kingdom experience.
There are a number of subject areas in the work of the inter-governmental groups to which the Government are recommended to give priority. The one on which I should like to concentrate is that special attention should be paid to the problems of unaccompanied minors both at their reception in this country and as regards their protection at work.
The Commission for Racial Equality stressed the need in its evidence for educational and training opportunities to be made available to young migrants to ensure that they did not become marginalised in labour markets. The Childrens Legal Centre described a proposal for establishing reception centres for unaccompanied children which had been brought up to date by the Refugee Council. However, it is true that the general view of witnesses was that it was better to treat the position of children in the context of asylum rather than as a matter of immigration policy.
That being so, I am glad that in the debate on the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill the other day, the problems faced by immigrant children were highlighted by a number of
452
noble Lords and especially by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who spoke movingly about her experience in dealing with the daunting problems that she has faced in finding accommodation for refugee children and even in communicating with them. I am sure that the committee was right to say that unaccompanied minors deserve specially favourable treatment at Community level even though the numbers involved might not be large.
In conclusion, I should like strongly to support the view of the committee that there should be an adequate system of judicial appeals from executive decisions to refuse refugee status to immigrants. I found it disturbing that on the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill several noble and learned Lords were highly critical of the Government's appeals procedure proposals. I hope, therefore, that those proposals will be examined closely at the Committee stage of that Bill, starting tomorrow.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I feel greatly privileged that I have had the opportunity of working on this report as a member of Sub-Committee C. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has covered most of the important points in the report, so I apologise if your Lordships find that in due course I re-emphasise some of them.
Before coming to your Lordships' House in 1990, I was a member of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Community. During my time in Brussels I had become deeply concerned about the attitudes prevailing in many of the Community countries towards immigrants from third countries, particularly towards those who belonged to different races. On my own arrival at that committee, I was asked, "Are you a European?", to which I replied strongly, "Yes, and I am here to remind you of the changing face of Europe". I might add that I was never asked again.
By producing a report on migration policy in Europe, the committee has, I believe, attempted to tackle one of the more difficult problems facing the member states at this moment. Clearly, the committee's recommendations will not provide all the answers but, taken together, they will move the Community in the right direction. At least one can hope that, by bringing all the available information together in one report, we shall have provided a useful document for all the campaigning organisations in the member states. That is, of course, if they are able to afford the full report at £23.80. It is a matter of great regret to me—and I am sure will be to others—that the very people we would most want to reach are likely to find the report extremely expensive.
I formally entered the race relations field in 1973–20 years ago—as a member of the conciliation committee of the Race Relations Board, and ended that formal involvement with six years as a member of the Commission for Racial Equality in 1986. It was only my subsequent three years in Brussels that brought home to me the fact that the United Kingdom undoubtedly leads the way in this field—not only

453
because our legislation is superior to that of any other member state but, perhaps even more importantly, because we have some extremely fine non-statutory bodies which closely monitor the situation and tirelessly campaign for improvements in this country.
In addition to the Commission for Racial Equality, we received excellent evidence from the Runnymede Trust, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Justice and many others. I should like to pay tribute to all of them for all the excellent work that they do. It would be remiss of me if I did not also mention the ethnic press which we are fortunate to have in this country.
We also received some excellent evidence from reports on different aspects of the migration question which were produced by the European Commission as well as by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs. I was particularly impressed by what Mr. AmÉdÉe Turner, the chairman of that committee, had to tell us. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has already mentioned his contribution but I should like to re-emphasise its importance. It was encouraging to hear that that committee's rapporteur for free movement had put forward the proposal that, after 10 years, any third-country resident of any member state should have the same rights as a citizen of a member state to reside and move in the Community. That sounds like a mouthful, but it is exactly as the noble Baroness has said—although someone resident in this country acquires a right to nationality, that person would never acquire that right in other member states. One must hope that this idea will gain momentum and will become accepted, as it will go a long way towards removing the present injustices against many lawfully settled non-citizens of Community countries.
Although we have no cause to be complacent, we in the United Kingdom are clearly doing better than our EC partners and I would urge the Government to put their knowledge and experience to good use by influencing others to follow the UK's example. The Maastricht Treaty, under its flanking pillars, provides for a joint approach between the Commission and national governments. We know that the United Kingdom is reluctant to allow any competence to pass to the Commission in this area, but if the situation in some of the member states is to improve, the Commission will of necessity have to be involved. How else is the Community going to take a common position not only on migration policy but, even more importantly, on outlawing racism and xenophobia?
Lately we have talked a great deal about "subsidiarity" and how it is going to allow more decisions to be taken locally. Clearly, that should certainly apply when those decisions are better taken at local level, but otherwise should we not develop a further concept of "reverse subsidiarity" through which the Community should be encouraged to adopt the better practices of the individual member states? I am absolutely sure that, when placed within a framework of Community legislation against racism
454
and xenophobia, the United Kingdom's approach to race relations and the institutions which we have developed here could make a serious and constructive contribution to developing the Community's stance towards ethnic minorities.
The seeds are already there. In 1990 the Council and representatives of member states adopted a resolution on the fight against racism and xenophobia. It called on member states to,
"adopt such measures as they consider appropriate",
with the Commission making comparative assessments of those measures and disseminating information. In December 1991 the European Council at Maastricht, recalling earlier actions, expressed its convictions that,
"combating discrimination in all its forms is therefore vital to the European Community, as a community of states governed by the rule of law".
It is not a huge leap from this to an overseeing role for the Commission to assess and monitor the quality and effectiveness of national legislation, making sure that it provides equal treatment for all minorities.
At this point, I should like to pick up on something that I have heard a lot about lately. I am deeply concerned that a view is being put forward that it is to be expected that we should see a rise in racism and xenophobia in times of recession. Perhaps I may remind the House that in much better times we still had a great deal of racism and xenophobia. Some of the most shameful incidents in this country took place, not in times of recession, but in times of plenty. That is just an excuse for doing nothing. It is of course easier when jobs are scarce to find scapegoats and to incite people to target those whose colour is different.
I come now to some of the committee's recommendations. One of our recommendations relates to the position of dependent spouses. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, mentioned the point. In Community countries, women who lose their husbands through death or divorce can be put in a difficult position. That hits women and children hard and adds to the problems they face at a difficult time. It is an area where a joint approach is clearly called for. I am well aware that a compassionate view is often taken by the Home Office in this country, but even then there is no certainty about the matter. I urge my noble friend the Minister to give the issue some urgent consideration.
My final point relates to the need for more openness. These matters are not discussed in the Community as openly as they are in the United Kingdom. As I pointed out on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, it is important that debates on these issues should take place in the Community in the public domain as happens in the United Kingdom. It serves only to foster suspicion and mistrust where none may be justified when people do not have access to the facts. Not many miles from the Community's borders we have a conflict which has given birth to the term "ethnic cleansing", a term which denigrates humanity itself. If the European Community is to send out a clear message to Yugoslavia, it needs to take a strong stance on the rise of racism and xenophobia within its own borders. We need a clear vision of the kind of Community we are trying to create for

455
ourselves and our children. I hope that it is one which will unreservedly reinforce liberal traditions and send out a strong signal that no injustice of any kind will be tolerated within its borders.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those who have congratulated the chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on the admirable way she led the committee. It was a considerable education for me not just to see how we interrogated our witnesses and elicited from them important pieces of information, but to experience her kindness and courtesy to all members of the committee.
I am happy to be able to agree with all the remarks that have been made so far. It occurred to me that I might be permitted to use the various paragraphs of the report as one might use stepping stones. The important part of the first paragraph shows the emphasis the Community has laid upon immigration and its concern that there has not been much public discussion on these matters. I have recognised more and more clearly as time has gone on the lack of public discussion about immigration.
Paragraph 11 picks up the interest of the European Commission and its point of view. It emphasises a point that ran through my mind throughout my service on the sub-committee: the conflict between the demands for immigration to help the labour markets —the number of people who can be employed—and the understandable anxieties felt in so many quarters about unemployment and how migrants might upset the labour market. That is an important factor in the national psychology—the national pipedreams, almost—which lies behind debates on this topic.
In paragraph 44 the committee reports that it received evidence from the Green Party. I must confess that for a little while I allowed my imagination to run wild. Its representatives referred to environmental refugees. It suddenly occurred to me that my good friend and colleague, the Warden of Green College, Oxford, might be able to provide us with some alarming information about what might happen to Europe as a result of global warming. I obtained the excellent book published by the DoE entitled The Potential Effects of Climate Change in the United Kingdom. I was reassured, in part, that it was not a topic about which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, needed to worry. Sea levels will continue to rise. They may rise by about three feet by 2030. There are risks of increased storms. There will be problems with power stations sited beside the sea. In some places they may be inundated in ways which were not thought of when they were first designed. While that might be a longer term problem, it is clear that we will not have many migrants from the Low Countries or East Anglia and Cambridge to other parts of the country or the European Community as a result of environmental factors.
I want to step on then to the paragraphs relating to demography (paragraphs 46 and 47). As a doctor interested in human biology, demography in Europe
456
strikes me as an important problem, although not one to be headlined in the report. Your Lordships should not be left in ignorance about what is happening demographically in the European Community countries. The quickest way might be for me to digress for a few moments and talk about Luxembourg. It was a fortress in the Middle Ages. It made such good steel that neighbouring countries would not allow anyone to dominate the production of the metal, and yet, due I suppose to competition from the Far East and Japan, its iron industry has run down. Although it was the location of the original iron and steel administration, which developed into the Common Market, that country has apparently lost the will to procreate. I do not know whether that is due to the loss of the industrial base, the impact of the wars or the appearance of the contraceptive pill, but the fact is that its population has declined. I believe I am right in saying that it now has a high proportion—I may be misquoting—of migrants from Portugal. I believe the figure is in the order of 30 per cent.
What is happening in Luxembourg—our smallest member state —should not blind us to the fact that our population may need important infusions of the kind of enterprising people who become immigrants. We had to be most careful when dealing with that matter in our report. We made the point that if we made too much about demography we might attract too much attention. We might stir up difficulties because people might believe that immigrants, by their fertility, would quickly oust the local population—that is, the home population—from authority.
I took the trouble to look at the fertility rates for various countries in Europe. They appeared in a publication of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and they are worrying. If a stable population is to be retained in a country it is necessary to have two births for every two people in that country. I admit that it is difficult to obtain the data. The committee made the point that good data must be collected in order to allow better planning for the future. If we bear in mind that two is the magic number, in 1949 the people of Luxembourg had a fertility rate of 1.45; in Belgium it was 1.56; in Denmark it was 1.67; and in British it was 1.83.
While everyone agrees that migration and immigration are major political factors for the future, I suspect that it will be a necessary feature in our development. I commend paragraph 47 of the report because it deals with the social factors involved in the changing fertility rate. It deals with the problems which come from later motherhood, single parenthood, the rising voluntary childlessness and oral contraceptives. It also deals with the rapidly increasingly number of females in the labour force and personal anxieties about employment as the industrial base shrinks. People even worry at night about the nuclear holocaust, which was more likely previously than now. We must face up to the question of demography, therefore, and not flinch from it. It will catch up with us sooner or later.
Finally, I was pleased to see the emphasis which the report gave to the small number of immigrant minors, who are important. We need to make sure that we

457
welcome those people. I have said previously in this Chamber that our youth are our real wealth. Let us give immigrants who come to live with us a good welcome to this country.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I was a member of the committee whose report is now before the House. It was a detailed and I think rather difficult remit. As will be seen from the report, the committee received a large amount of evidence from interested bodies and arranged for a lot of evidence to be taken verbally as well.
Our chairman, my noble friend Lady Lockwood, has already covered the ground with her usual expertise. I too express my gratitude to her for that and for the way in which she chaired the committee. I do not want to go over the same territory but there is an aspect of the report about which I feel strongly, even though it was not a major part of the remit. I should say that we were conscious of the fact that we were covering ground that would also be covered by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, which has already had its Second Reading in your Lordships' House and is now about to go into Committee. We did, however, touch on the subject of unaccompanied minors. That matter is of considerable concern to a number of organisations involved with the care of children, including Save the Children Fund of which I am a council member. An unaccompanied refugee child is a person under 18 years of age who has been forced to flee his or her country of origin without a parent or other adult who has responsibility for him or her and who has travelled to another country in order to seek asylum. When parents are dead, imprisoned, missing or unable to uproot the whole family, the child sometimes flees alone or with friends or siblings.
I have a personal reason for feeling strongly about that. I well remember that when I was young in the thirties my family befriended a young girl of my own age. She had come from Sudeten Germany, which had then been overrun by Hitler. She and her younger sister came from a loving, caring family. The family was Jewish and both parents had considerable doubts about the possibility of their own survival. In that their fears proved tragically well-founded. When my friend returned to Czechoslovakia after the war in an attempt to trace her family she was unable to trace her father and later discovered that her mother had died in Ravensbruch. But her parents, desperate to save their children, had handed them over to a mission which took children to Britain and she was able to grow up here among people who befriended her.
Unfortunately, we still live in a world in which desperate parents send their children away because they themselves are threatened. Western Europe as a whole receives only 5 per cent. of the world's refugees and children make up one half of the 18 million refugees worldwide. Relatively small numbers of unaccompanied children come to Europe seeking protection from persecution, war and violence. However, that number may increase because there seems to be little prospect that the violence and civil strife that result in the flight of people, including
458
children, from their homes are likely to diminish. Under conditions of civil war children are likely to become separated from their parents. As we are seeing in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia, children comprise a significant proportion of the casualties of war. Sometimes parents try to find a way to pay for the air fare to get their children to safety. It is very difficult for an entire family in a developing country to travel.
Many families go into serious debt to purchase a ticket. Where parents are dead or imprisoned, relatives or family friends may arrange for the children to leave the country. According to the Children's Legal Centre, which has undertaken substantial research, there have been reports of children travelling on foot from Eastern Europe and CIS countries to seek refuge in central Europe. On arrival in the country of asylum refugee children are often exhausted from their trip. They are suffering from the shock of separation from their homes and families and are unlikely to speak the language of the receiving country. If refugees generally are seen as a vulnerable group, unaccompanied children are even more so. The committee looked at the issues involved here and felt strongly that special attention should be given to the problem of unaccompanied minors both at their reception and later on in the context of the Commission's proposals for the protection of young people at work. The idea of reception centres commended itself to us.
A number of witnesses thought that the general issue of unaccompanied minors was more appropriately dealt with in the context of asylum rather than general immigration policy. However, we were aware that, whereas our Children Act gives priority to the interests of children, the same does not apply to immigration policy in which no distinction is made between adults and children. Several countries, including our own, have enacted carrier liability legislation. That imposes heavy fines on airlines and other carriers which bring in travellers without proper documentation. Children may never have possessed the necessary documents. The Children's Legal Centre says that there have been instances in Britain of some unaccompanied minors being returned by airlines without being able to claim asylum.
I am aware, of course, that the House will be able to address some of those issues when the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill is in Committee. But the report now before the House flags up some very real areas of concern. As has already been mentioned tonight, the CRE, for example, stressed the need for education and training. It felt that otherwise young migrants could all too readily become marginalised in low-paid and exploitative employment—even more so, I would suggest, if the Government's proposals to do away with wages councils, which currently provide at least some small amount of protection to those in low paid employment, are eventually approved by Parliament. Many young migrants end up in wages council industries at present.
Our report stresses the need for inter-governmental co-operation. Clearly that is essential when dealing with the problem of unaccompanied children. The survey conducted by the Children's Legal Centre

459
revealed a wide diversity of practices as between EC countries. Some were very good and supportive of such migrants while others were quite the reverse. Our report stresses the need to develop constructive, compassionate approaches to the problems of migration.
We were all keenly aware of the considerable contribution made to the prosperity and success of the UK by previous generations of migrants, many of whom came to Britain to escape racial persecution in their countries of origin. We were concerned—as a number of noble Lords have stressed —about what appears to be the emergence of xenophobia and racial intolerance in some EC member states. For that reason, we thought that consideration should be given to the recommendation that the Community should have explicit powers to combat racism and xenophobia. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who was with me on the committee, has already stressed that point based on her own considerable experience.
Our report points to our own legislation for the promotion of racial equality and to the existence of the CRE. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, we believe that our legislation and arrangements are superior in many respects to those in many other EC states. We have suggested that the UK should press strongly for appropriate changes within the Council of Ministers. My noble friend Lady Lockwood has already referred to that and to the whole matter of EC competence in that regard.
I have dealt with only certain aspects of the report, which covers, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, a very wide area. However, I believe that the report has a great deal to commend it and I trust that it will be useful in the continuing development of policy in this area.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, when I was in business, I used to go home and my children would ask what I had been doing at work. I would tell them that I had been to a board meeting or had perhaps visited a factory. They would then ask me what had happened. That is a question that I always ask at the conclusion of any committee. I am sure that that is good advice.
As regards European committees—and I have had some experience of them—it generally takes about five years for something to happen. I remember sitting on a committee which considered European air fares. Nothing happened to start with, but eventually it did. There was another committee which considered the price of motor cars in Europe. Again, nothing happened to start with but about five years later, action began to take place.
What about this committee? As your Lordships have heard already, we had an admirable chairman. Like all good committees, there were many tiresome people on it, of which I count myself one, but the chairman kept us all in order. We had to look at a welter of words and masses of paper. On one occasion I took the opportunity to weigh the paper which I had
460
to take to the committee meeting and it weighed one pound and a quarter. Therefore, we were dealing with an exhaustive subject.
First, I wish to praise the report. I believe that it is brilliant. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, that is due in part to the secretarial. However, I wish to go further and wider. If your Lordships think about it, the nation with the most experience of immigration is the United States of America. It has been dealing with it for about 300 years. If you were an immigrant into the United States of America, there was no seat that you could not occupy. You have only to think of the names of two recent presidents — Presidents Eisenhower and Roosevelt—to realise that anything could be achieved. At the same time, we must recognise also that all the immigration problems in the USA have not been cured. I am talking about racism among other matters.
The second most important country to tackle problems of immigration in a big way was Australia. I have been there 13 times and have seen the problems from the very beginning. Just after the war there were immigrants from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They were called by the Australians the "Balts". They transformed Australia. Restaurants were opened. Chemist shops stayed open later. I am not sure how many of your Lordships know about the six o'clock swill, and I shall not explain it, but that came to an end. Ladies were allowed into public houses—something which had never happened before.
Of course, Australia also had its economic problems. Your Lordships must believe me when I say that just after 1946, I was sitting in a house in Perth when the hour hand was coming up to the hour and out came the candles and the matches. We lit the candles because hour by hour the electricity alternated between Perth and Fremantle. There was not enough power for that part of Australia.
However, having conquered all that, matters improved. Years afterwards my wife and I were invited by the Lord Mayor of Perth to a reception for new immigrants. There were 70 families. Of course it was compulsory for the men of the families to take the oath in English. The ladies of Perth looked after the wives and children of those families. It was most warming to see how they were being welcomed. I do not remember anything like that happening in this country. The Australians realised, as we should do, that their country would benefit from immigration.
There is no need for us to be ashamed of our record. I read in Hansard the other day that a Minister last travelled on a train on 1st December. However, if he travelled with me on the tube trains he would see people who had obviously come from countries other than our own. They are probably second, or even third, generation children of immigrants of past years.
I saw this happening from the beginning. I returned from Mexico in a French ship, the "Ile de France" and I saw all the immigrants coming to this country from the West Indies. I should emphasise that it was a time of full employment and we welcomed those people who were prepared to work in the hospitals and on the buses. Indeed, they did a good job.

461
Behind all that—and it has been mentioned before —is the question of education. The most difficult question is: what are the fundamentals of our nationhood and our culture? Some things cannot be swept aside; for example, the English language. I noticed the other day that the House was debating the Welsh Language Bill. We must allow the Welsh their idiosyncrasies, and that is not sour grapes about the football because as every Englishman who saw that match knows, we really won it. There are fundamentals and there are some inessential differences. However, those inessential differences can worry people. For example, there was the problem of the Sikhs who insisted on wearing their turbans when they were riding their motorcycles.
There is also the question of religion. We have several different kinds of religion running in this country. I agree with Voltaire that man made God in his own image and that that accounts for the differences in religion.
There is another problem which worries me; namely, that on Sundays an enormous amount of time is devoted to television programmes on eastern races. I suppose that we should not worry about that because in the end it will die a natural death as the second and third generations come along. However, it is a matter that we should think about.
I may be accused of cynicism but I have a phrase written down which states, "do not let us start preaching to Europe". We have problems in this country which we have not yet solved and we should solve them before we start trying to convert Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said the other day that there was a spirit of 19th century generosity in this country which he hoped would be maintained. To be honest, that was not a spirit of generosity; that spirit arose from a situation of full employment. One cannot suggest at this time that there can be a European policy on immigration when unemployment prevails throughout Europe. We are in a difficult situation and we must face up to that.
Some of the points that I have made are mentioned in the report. I hope that I may give your Lordships a piece of good advice. I suggest that noble Lords read the comments made by the Runnymede Trust in the report. That trust was started in 1968 and it has devoted itself to the question of a European Community policy on immigration. The trust states:
"successful integration requires both a legal and administrative framework to allow the immigrant population to achieve parity with the national population, as well as educational measures to enhance public awareness".
That matter has already been referred to. The trust further states:
"The experience of the UK suggests that such efforts should include a public education programme explaining the state's anti-discrimination policies and measures, showing the contribution of immigrants to the society in question, and encouraging harmony and positive efforts by all citizens".
The Runnymede Trust also stated in the report that a European policy on immigration,
'should be based on open, informed and extensive public consultation and expert analysis"—
that has been referred to today—
'of what such a policy is intended to achieve; it should take account both of States' likely labour needs and projected demographic trends; it should take account of States' legal,
462
humanitarian and historical responsibilities both in general and to particular countries; particular account should be taken of the world refugee problem and the Community's response to it; it should take account of States' responsibilities towards existing migrants, particularly in terms of family reunification".
Your Lordships may perhaps accuse me of cynicism. However, I believe I am being realistic. I shall, however, conclude on a more optimistic note. As regards whether there will be a Community policy on immigration, I feel that in time there will be one.
5.22 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I wish to speak for only a few minutes on this report. As I am speaking at the end of the debate I find that many points have already been made or mentioned by previous speakers, very many of which I agree with. Human beings have been migrating since the beginning of time, as we know from history. The problems are not new, and the field is enormous.
As a member of the committee it became clear from the evidence we heard, and also from written evidence, that there are innumerable difficulties and problems facing the European Community in regard to migration and immigration into its member states of nationals from non-member states. Among other areas of concern, the committee thought that there was a particular need for Community provision to protect spouses and other dependants of non-Community nationals in the case of divorce or separation or following the death of the non-Community national spouse.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants noted that the matter was under consideration by the Commission and the European Parliament. The Commission also noted that it was to be raised in the Council. Perhaps it should also be considered by appropriate groups of national representatives. Government witnesses said that the subject fell outside the EEC treaty and that United Kingdom immigration laws made no special provision for women in this category but considered each case on its merits. Witnesses, however, confirmed that it was to be further discussed during the United Kingdom presidency.
The Runnymede Trust, which my noble friend Lord Hayter has already mentioned, had some imaginative ideas on the question of immigration. With the creation of the single European market with its resultant greater freedom of movement and greater co-operation among European states, the subject of migration must be discussed by all member states together. Each state, after all, is affected by the immigration policies of the others, so it is only logical that there should be joint discussions together with joint action.
The Foreign Secretary in his speech to the Swiss Bank Corporation suggested the use of trade measures in the agricultural sector to encourage producers to remain in their own countries and the application of know-how fund techniques to encourage other would-be migrants to remain put. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has already mentioned this suggestion. Would the Minister care to comment on

463
the matter when he comes to reply? Perhaps he can say what progress has been made, or whether discussions have been held with other member states to discover whether it could be of any possible help?
The subject of migration is a difficult and complex one. No matter how carefully it is discussed and what conclusions are reached, there will be some who will slip through the net one way or the other. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has explained the committee's work with great detail and care and I would like to thank her for all her patience and kindness in guiding us so well.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I believe I am the first person to take part in this debate who did not serve on the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I can therefore, without fear of being accused of complacency, congratulate her most heartily on the work of her committee and on the report that it has produced which is both timely and constructive. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, mentioned the role of inter-governmental co-operation in this whole matter. That is a topic I shall return to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, drew attention to the position of children. That matter will be raised at the Committee stage of the asylum Bill. That is a matter of great importance. A number of those who have contributed to this debate have urged that our legislation should be adopted on a Community-wide basis. I fully assent to that view but I hope that it will not make us complacent about our own legislation and its effectiveness. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, in that respect. There is plenty for us to do in this country, and if we wish to transfer our legislation to the Continent, let us do it as the best thing we have but not the best thing we could have.
I have said that this report is timely. I say that because migration is a matter that is moving up the political agenda throughout Europe and also throughout the world. As others have mentioned, this debate coincides with the passage of the asylum Bill. I said that this is a constructive report because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, the evidence submitted in the report provides a factual basis for the discussion of these matters which are often discussed with little reference to what is actually happening or has happened. The report is also constructive because it seems to me that the recommendations it makes are such that it would be very difficult for anyone to resist them. They seem to me to represent about the least that we can do.
Nonetheless, I look forward to hearing the Government's response without absolute confidence that it will be as positive as we might hope. Nevertheless I shall listen to the comments of the noble Earl when he replies to the debate. I fear, however, that, like the response of the Government to so many matters that concern the Community, particularly in the political and social fields since the passage of the Single European Act, it will be somewhat negative.
464
This was brilliantly described in an article in November in the Financial Times written by Ian Davidson in which he describes the Government's response to the European Community and measures connected with it as minimalist. In the article he was concerned to analyse the Government's reaction to the Maastricht Treaty. He wrote:
"Mr. Major has repeatedly said that he wants Britain to be `at the heart of Europe'. But as time passes, it seems clear that his only real reason for wanting to be inside the Community, is that he does not want to be outside".
That seems to be all too true.
The consistency of the Government's minimalism is confirmed by the account of those negotiations given by the Belgian ambassador, who was present. He said that different member states had different objectives. France and Germany were keen on foreign policy, Denmark on the environment, Italy and Belgium on majority voting, and so on.
"But a very important fact must not be overlooked: one major player was keen on nothing! ‥ The outcome of the negotiations cannot be understood if one forgets that one of the main partners did not, in fact, desire any specific result".
That country was Britain. I hope that that will not be the nature of the noble Earl's response to the debate. However, it sometimes seems that the Government's attitude to migration and asylum vividly represents that minimalist view. The asylum Bill asks what is the minimum number we can take and what is the least we can do for them.
If ever there was a European problem which required a European answer it is surely the question of migration. If ever there was a problem demanding a harmonisation of European policy it is surely this question of migration. The issues on which we need agreement are: who may enter; what rights they have when they have entered; and what is meant by Article 8A, to which I shall come.
The British Government's position appears to be characteristically minimalist. They plump for the narrowest definition of refugee, namely, that of the Geneva Convention of 1951. I shall not dwell on that point because it will be raised in Committee tomorrow. However, the rights of people within the Community are very important issues. They are, for example, the right of free movement and the interpretation of Article 8A and the right of protection against discrimination on grounds of race, colour and so on, which has been mentioned. Those are crucial questions which can and, in my view, must be answered on a Community basis.
It is no surprise that the Government argue that Article 8A in the Maastricht Treaty does not impose an obligation to dismantle all border controls and allow free movement of persons regardless of nationality. Whatever the niceties of the legal interpretation of Article 8A, I would argue, as I did during the Second Reading of the asylum Bill, that in resisting the Commission's interpretation of that article the Government are acting on the advice of Canute's courtiers. As the Economist pointed out, with the advent of air travel and the Channel Tunnel, the white cliffs of Dover argument about Britain's borders has become anachronistic: add to that the Shengen agreement which, when ratified, in this field will lead us straight into a two-speed Europe. There is no

465
denying that fact. Is that a fact which the Government welcome? Do they welcome the fact that, just as trains arriving through the Channel Tunnel will have to slow down to 60 miles an hour, people arriving in England will have to join a queue? Is that really what they want to achieve?
Then we come to the right of protection against discrimination, about which we have already heard. It appears that the Government do not regard that as a high priority, despite the fact that here, for once, we have something positive to offer our colleagues, despite the fact that it would protect the rights of British citizens in the European Community and that, at a time of rising racism on the Continent, one can hardly think of a measure which is more appropriate.
I suspect that the reason why that does not have high priority is that the best way to ensure that throughout the Community there is an effective anti-discriminatory law would be to make the matter a Commission competence. That would fly in the face of that symbol of Mr. Major's minimalism, inter-governmental co-operation. Here I would put a slightly different emphasis on the priorities from that of the committee. Asylum and immigration matters are, under Maastricht, a responsibility of an ad hoc group of Ministers. The ad hoc group of Ministers suffers from three real and serious deficiencies: lack of transparency, or undue secrecy; lack of accountability; and bureaucracy. Here we come to the heart of political co-operation.
There are two arguments against political co-operation. The first is one of principle and the second one of practice. The argument of principle is that political co-operation was precisely the basis on which the League of Nations worked before the war. It was the way the League of Nations worked which led M. Monnet to say that political co-operation was not enough and that it should be replaced with the kind of structure which lies at the basis of the Community.
Political co-operation suffers from a second practical difficulty which is in some ways worse and is easily demonstrated by Mr. Major's achievement at Maastricht. It removes the matters which are handled by political co-operation from parliamentary control. That means that asylum, immigration policy and policy regarding the nationals of third countries are removed from the control of the European Parliament and are subject simply to periodic reports to this Parliament. I should have thought that any parliament in the world would want to be associated with the control of those matters. But it is those matters which this Government, who constantly emphasise their democratic auspices, will not allow the European Parliament to touch, still less to control.
Not only are the proceedings of the ad hoc group secret and held in private, as the report indicates. To whom are the responsibilities for looking after such matters consigned? That is the central question. The answer is, to national civil servants. The Government inveigh against the Brussels bureaucracy, but when one hands over the control of security, foreign policy and home affairs—and it is home affairs to which I return—to inter-governmental co-operation one is
466
handing over control to national civil servants. One has only to read Article K4 of the Maastricht Treaty to see what it means. Article K4 provides for the setting up of a co-ordinating committee of senior officials —for which read senior national officials. It is they who prepare the agenda and they who propose the policies which constitute the work of the Council of Ministers. Of course, the Council of Ministers meets in private. We do not know how our representative votes, still less how he argues. The real bureaucracy is not that of Brussels. It is the bureaucracy of national civil servants who service COREPER and the Council of Ministers.
Reports indicate increasing disenchantment in Europe with the negative, minimalist attitude of the British Government towards the Community. It would appear that the considerable good will and patience which have been shown towards this country are being eroded. What a change it would be if for once this Government could take a positive stance on the issue of immigration and make a few positive proposals that would represent a constructive approach to this difficult problem which will be with us for the next 10 or 20 years. It demands a European and constructive approach, and one in which this country for once takes a lead.
Perhaps I may make some suggestions. We should propose a law to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, colour and so on on the lines of our race relations legislation, or better, to apply throughout the Community. We should propose measures to harmonise European immigration policy which would apply throughout the Community. We should remove the secrecy which surrounds the work of the ad hoc groups. We should associate the European Parliament with those policies. Finally, as I suggested at Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, we should call a conference along the lines of the conference called by President Roosevelt at Evian in 1938 to discuss the asylum crisis which faces Europe and demand a common approach and a common policy. We should for once give a lead in the matter.
5.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lockwood for the way in which she introduced this important report. She made matters clear to me which I regret to say were not clear despite attentive reading of the report. Reports from the European Communities Committee usually respond to a specific directive which has a clear thrust; the response of the committee can be readily explained and understood. The European Communities Committee on migration had the disadvantage that it was dealing only with two communications from the Community, rather than directives. Those communications were in themselves tentative and vague. The committee clearly had to achieve consensus. It was difficult for it to achieve the thrust which is a common feature of the reports of our European Communities committees. However, my noble friend made the issues much clearer in her

467
opening speech and I am grateful to her for that. I am indeed grateful to all the members of the committee for the work that they put into the report.
My noble friend stated that there were two critical issues on migration: first, the nature and the extent of the problem; and, secondly, Community involvement. I wish to take those two critical issues as my theme.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, stated, there is no doubt that the issue of migration is moving up the political agenda. At Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, I ventured to suggest that migration is likely to be the most important issue of the 1990s and the first part of the 21st century. There have been improvements—I deliberately use that tense—in standards of living in a number of developed and developing countries. However, what has not changed—indeed it has become worse—is the difference between the standard of living of developed countries and that of the third world. Therefore the economic pressures for migration clearly will not go away.
As has been said both in the Second Reading debate and today, that difference has been combined with improvements in communication, transportation and education. Such developments have in turn led to improvements in the command of other languages and to the "internationalisation" of technology. That has meant an internationalisation of job capabilities. Thus it becomes clear that pressure for movement for economic reasons is increasing rather than diminishing.
Sadly, at the same time pressure of migration for political reasons, and for self-preservation against persecution and civil war, is not going away either. In the 1990s we are seeing a collapse of the 19th century nation states in many countries of the world. We are seeing that without the protection for minorities which is the necessary condition if the new, smaller nation states are to survive and to provide a decent life for their citizens. There can be no doubt that when we debate migration, we talk of perhaps the great issue for the world in the 1990s—and I do not underestimate the importance of environmental matters.
How does that relate to the concerns on which the committee spent time? There are issues which are clearly at the sharp end. A number of noble Lords have properly paid attention to them. Clearly, with the prospect of increased pressure for migration into the European Community, the way in which we treat those who seek to come to the member states, and those who have come is of critical importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, rightly made the point about the changing face of Europe when she responded to the question of whether she was a European.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to the issue when he spoke of the need for infusions of enterprising people. The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, made similar points when talking about the value of immigration to this country. That migration is sometimes at the expense of damage to the exporting countries when people are forced to come to this
468
country. One thinks of what has happened to the economy of Uganda after the Ugandan Asians came to this country. They are of enormous benefit to us but the damage to the Ugandan economy and society must not be overlooked.
The treatment of people who come to this country is an issue which has a history of 2,000 not 20 years. We have to consider it now in the context of a society which is not increasingly equal, but has increasing equal opportunity. We have to remember what my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington said in a very far-sighted book entitled, The Rise of the Meritocracy. A number of years ago he pointed out the danger that if we really have equality of opportunity without reducing class differences, all we shall attain is a situation where those with greater ability rise to the top of the heap and we then have class differences which are ineradicable. My noble friend has been disproved. The rise of the meritocracy has not occurred largely because of immigration to this country, with successive waves of people. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to infusions of enterprising people who come to this country to do many of the things that other people are unwilling or unable to do.
Briefly, I wish to dispose of the argument that it is possible to take a rational view by looking at labour markets, and to say, "We can allow quotas where there is a shortage of skills in specific parts of the European Community". Our understanding of the labour markets is not so accurate as that. Our understanding of skill shortages is not so accurate as that. If we attempt to treat immigration in terms of social engineering I can assure noble Lords that we shall fail because we shall adopt an unduly restrictive approach. Almost every case of immigration which may have been unwelcome at the time, has been found to be of enormous and unpredicted benefit to the economies of the receiving countries. The fact that it was unwelcome at the time leads me to the second major consideration: racism and xenophobia within the Community and individual countries.
It may be true, as a number of noble Lords said, that we are doing better than other member states in the way in which we behave with regard to racism and xenophobia. It may be true that our Race Relations Act is better than that of many other countries. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is right to say that our Race Relations Act ought to be extended to other countries in the Community. But we would be in great danger if we became too complacent about race relations in this country, even though we have a law which purports to cover it and even though we have not recently had the kind of riots and racist attacks that they have had in Germany, particularly eastern Germany. The problem has not gone away; it does not go away. It requires unremitting attention and vigilance if we are not to allow racism to rear its ugly head in this country as in all other European countries.
I shall not refer to the issue of unaccompanied children because my noble friend Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and others covered it adequately.

469
I wish now to turn briefly to the vexed question of Community involvement in migration policy. The advantages of greater Community involvement are clear. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and others have talked about the lack of openness of this ad hoc group of immigration ministers, of the TREVI and Schengen groups and the risk that they may make their decisions in secret. Those decisions are not reported either to national parliaments or to anyone else. Under the circumstances, I find it surprising that the Government's response to the recommendation of the committee in paragraph 84—which was only that the reports should be made orally to Parliament—should be that the request will merely be considered.
My noble friend Lady Lockwood made it clear that the request that the reports should be made orally was a minimal request. It was very little to ask. If the Government cannot even accede to that in their response, it makes one dubious about whether they have any real commitment to openness at all.
The positive effect of moving from migration being a matter of common interest to it being a matter of Community competence cannot be doubted. But there are possible negative effects and we cannot ignore them. There is the fear which has been expressed by a number of noble Lords that intervention by the Community would mean a levelling down rather than levelling up. In its recommendations, the committee referred—though not in so many words—to the primary purpose rule which the Home Office has in deciding whether a marriage is such as to allow the admission of the dependants into this country. The fear must be, since this primary purpose rule is not exercised by other countries, that our more restrictive practices would be exported to other countries rather than their more liberal practices being exported to this country.
I am sorry to say that the same could be true of the Race Relations Act. The effect of greater Community involvement may be that the power of the Race Relations Act would be weakened rather than that its strength should be extended to other countries. If we are to take the route of greater Community involvement in migration matters—and I perfectly see the justification for it, as I made clear—we have to be on our guard against the lowest common denominator.
Above all, our first priority must be to put our own house in order. I can only say to your Lordships that the debates which we shall have on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill tomorrow, on Thursday and next Tuesday, will be evidence of the willingness and ability of your Lordships' House to take a liberal and far-sighted view on those matters. I urge as many of your Lordships as possible to be present for the Committee stage, to listen to and to take part in the debate and to help to preserve our reputation as a civilised country, not only in the Community but in the world.
5.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, on that closing remark of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, perhaps I may say that I too hope
470
that your Lordships will be present at the Committee stage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill to hear all the sound arguments that will be put forward, from this side of the House at least. Then your Lordships will be able to make up your minds.
I wish to add my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the opportunity which she has given us this afternoon for a most interesting debate. Several noble Lords said that we would look at the problem of immigration in the near future. I believe that I can accord with that view.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was kind enough, as he always is, to say that he looked forward to my speech. I feel deeply flattered and I hope that I shall not disappoint him. But then, in a charmingly gratuitous way, he said that he did not believe that it would contain anything—but nevertheless he would listen to every word. I am deeply grateful for that. At least it means that I shall have an audience of one, and I could not expect more than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, made two remarks which I found hard to believe, but coming from him I am forced to believe them both. First, he said that he was a difficult member of the committee. I do not believe that that could have been the committee's view, although it must have been his view, otherwise he would not have said it. Secondly, he said, with astonishment, that the amount of paper he had to read weighed 1½ lbs. I can only say to him that if that was the whole weight of paper he had to read he is a lucky fellow.
Immigration is a complex and often emotional issue. It becomes no easier when we have to examine these matters on a European scale. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and her sub-committee for producing such a useful report in Community Policy on Migration. It enabled us to discuss the whole matter. I have written to the noble Baroness setting out the terms of the response which the Government have in mind to make to the report's main conclusions, subject to what your Lordships have said this afternoon. A formal response to the report will be published as soon as possible after the debate.
It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships of our underlying policy on immigration. The first part of the Government's policy is to allow all genuine visitors and students to enter the United Kingdom. Most of the foreign nationals who come here are visitors, or they come here for a short-term purpose such as to study.
In 1991, about 16 million people who were not British citizens came here. About half of those were European Community nationals. The remainder were non-Community nationals who were subject to immigration control. The majority of those would have—and certainly should have—returned to their own country at the end of their visit.
The second aim of the Government's policy is to give effect to the provisions of European Community law which permit free movement of European Community nationals and their families between the member states. There are a number of European Community directives which allow a European Community national to work and to live here. In

471
addition, provided that he or she is self-supporting, a European Community national is also allowed to stay as a vocational student, a retired person or for any other purpose.
These rights of residence work two ways. They also mean that British citizens are just as free to reside anywhere else in the Community. Your Lordships are now at liberty to study in France—if you should feel so motivated—to work in Germany or to retire to Spain.
The third aim of the Government's immigration policy is the most difficult. It relates to people coming for settlement. Britain is a small, densely populated island, and we have to accept that we simply cannot admit everyone who would like to live here. That is why the Government's policy is to restrict the numbers of people who want to come to live here permanently or who want to work in the United Kingdom. But at the same time we must continue to admit the spouses and minor dependent children of those who are already here.
In 1991 some 54,000 foreign or Commonwealth citizens were accepted for settlement and were given indefinite leave to remain. The Government's overriding aim is to pursue this immigration policy in a way which is both firm and fair.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, was concerned as to whether there was an argument for immigration on economic or demographic grounds. I think that the demographic argument should be treated with caution. The view of a number of researchers is that immigration is not a long-term solution to the issue of ageing populations in developed countries. A one-off injection of fresh labour would not solve the problem. But in order to offset the effect of ageing, the intake of young migrants would need to continue indefinitely, with potentially very great social consequences.
We in the United Kingdom are not alone in finding immigration a sensitive and straining issue. Almost all the member states of the European Community now face similar immigration pressures—some worse—and this is mainly as a result of the economic attractions of Europe. There has also been a considerable increase in the number of people who claim asylum right across Europe.
I never thought—and I dare say that some of your Lordships never thought—that any of us would live to see the collapse of Communism. It seemed almost an impossibility. But it has happened. While we welcome the fracture of Communism—indeed, the total destruction of its fabric—it has, nevertheless, left in its place a degree of uncertainty and apprehension and a wish to see something better.
The welcome changes in eastern Europe have led to greater democracy, but they have increased the immigration pressures across the eastern frontiers of the European Community. We, therefore, agree with the committee that it is right for us to seek a common approach on immigration matters with our Community partners. That is why we have been playing an active part in the discussions in the European Community Ad Hoc Working Group on Immigration. I know that that organisation did not
472
meet with the rapturous approval of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. He proposed various laws and measures which the European Community might adopt, such as laws against discrimination, harmonising measures for immigration and so forth. But we think that immigration matters should be decided by the governments of the member states working together rather than by the more rigid system of Community law.
Under the Maastricht Treaty immigration will be based on inter-governmental co-operation. Only two matters will be brought within Community competence. The first is that there will be a uniform format for a European Community visa. The second is that there will be a common list of countries whose nationals will require visas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, was concerned about matters relating to immigration and asylum policy. They are for the most part outside the Community competence. The European Court of Justice would not have jurisdiction over any appeals in these areas. The United Kingdom would resist any further extension of the court's jurisdiction into these areas. The harmonisation of asylum and immigration policy will continue to be conducted through inter-governmental co-operation once the Maastricht Treaty is implemented. Any harmonisation of appeals would have to be established by consent among the Twelve.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it requires that there should be adequate protection against discrimination throughout the Community if the writ for free movement of labour is genuinely to run?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. There must be anti-discrimination. I believe that the only difference between us is that we think the right way to do it is to enable and encourage other countries to adopt the sort of measures that we have rather than to produce a European Community diktat.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, I believe, that after 10 years a long-term stayer should have the same rights as a citizen of the country. As the report notes, that is a matter of great sensitivity for some member states. Many would say that the remedy is for the people concerned to take out citizenship of the member state. The Maastricht harmonisation programme refers to that. But it is a remedy that is likely to be approached with caution by member states which may lose employment opportunities for their own nationals.
The noble Baroness asked whether I could throw more light on the Government's intentions on making information available about European Community work on immigration. At present the position is that successive Home Secretaries have thought that the written replies are adequate. But the Maastricht Treaty raises new questions. The task will be to find a procedure for informing and consulting Parliament on the work of the Maastricht third pillar, which fulfils

473
the same sort of function as the present arrangements for scrutiny of Commission proposals for Community legislation under the Treaty of Rome.
The whole matter requires not only further consideration within government but also close consultation with your Lordships' House and another place. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will make proposals as soon as possible. I accept that more needs to be done to provide improved information to Parliament. We are moving in changing times and we are certainly considering how best that might be achieved under the new Maastricht arrangements.
Under the United Kingdom presidency we achieved a great deal through the inter-governmental route. At the meeting of European community immigration Ministers on 30th November, which was chaired by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, we secured agreement on a number of texts on matters such as asylum and illegal immigration. All the texts which were agreed at that meeting of immigration Ministers have been made publicly available and copies have been deposited in the Library of your Lordships' House and that of another place.
We also accept the committee's view that better comparative statistics need to be achievable on immigration matters relating to the member states. There is though a difficulty in making valid comparisons, not so much because of differences in the type of migrant but because of differences in the way in which immigration policy is administered in each member state and the way in which the statistics are collected. This is an improvement which we shall continue to work for within the Community.
Indeed, a "clearing house" on asylum has now been set up to provide a forum for the exchange of information and for the collection of data. It has also been agreed to set up a similar immigration clearing house to act as a centre for discussion and exchange of information between member states on the crossing of borders and on immigration.
I was glad to see that the committee felt that for the United Kingdom the most effective way to control immigration is at our ports of entry. That is the Government's view. We will continue to maintain immigration controls on those who arrive at our ports from other European Community states. When it is open, we will also have to operate immigration controls on Channel Tunnel traffic.
On 1st January this year, with the completion of the internal market, we removed routine customs checks on passengers arriving from other member states. We are though continuing immigration controls on non-European Community nationals, together with a light passport or identity card check on European Community nationals in order to distinguish them from non-European Community nationals.
There is already a separate European Community channel at most of our ports and airports, the purpose of which is to speed up the passage of British and other European Community nationals when they arrive in this country.
We shall also be considering what further changes we could make in the course of 1993 to reduce the
474
checks on European Community nationals to the minimum level possible. It will obviously be one which is, nevertheless, compatible with the retention of proper control of third country nationals and which is compatible with the safeguards which are necessary to protect ourselves against the entry of terrorists and other serious criminals.
The committee concluded that the treatment of long stay immigrants who have not acquired nationality of a member state should be given priority attention at a European level. That is one of the matters which was listed for examination in the immigration and asylum work programme which was approved by the European Council at Maastricht in December 1991.
As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, our Immigration Rules provide that foreign nationals who have been admitted here to work or to establish themselves in business or self-employment may be granted settlement after four years; and their spouse and dependent children will be too. The Government consider that that provides fair treatment, especially since settlement opens the way to British citizenship.
The committee also drew attention to the difference between our own Immigration Rules relating to the admission of spouses and the Community law relating to the free movement of European Community nationals and their families. In our view, that difference simply reflects the different purposes of our Immigration Rules and those of Community legislation.
Our Immigration Rules relating to marriage are designed to guard against abuse by those who are prepared to enter into marriage simply as a device by which they can obtain settlement in this country. The rules do not seek to place obstacles in the path of those who want to enter into genuine marriages with people who are already settled here. In 1991, some 30,600 spouses were accepted for settlement on the basis of marriage. That figure suggests that genuine applicants do not find it difficult to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules.
The committee suggested that special attention needs to be given to the protection of the dependants of non-European Community nationals in cases of death, divorce or separation. My noble friend Lady Flather followed that up by saying that in the United Kingdom applications to stay in such cases are considered on their merits, taking into account any compassionate circumstances. My noble friend believed that a joint approach with the European states was desirable. However, it would be difficult to identify a uniform rule which could be applied in all cases. It would be difficult also to reach an agreement on a standard rule which would in fact be as favourable to those in the United Kingdom as is the present United Kingdom practice.
The other type of case in which the committee felt that priority should be given at a European level was that of unaccompanied minor children. That point was referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Turner, and the noble Lord,

475
Lord Hayter. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to it only briefly in saying that he did not intend to refer to it.
It is a difficult and sensitive issue; and it needs to be considered in particular in the context of asylum. Children who are not accompanied by relatives or by any other responsible adult are unlikely to seek entry other than when they are claiming asylum. Although those asylum cases create particular problems, the numbers are relatively small and the question of the reception and maintenance of those children is part of a country's broader provision for the protection and welfare of children.
The exact handling of those cases inevitably reflects the arrangements for the care of children in the host country. In that country the responsibility for the care of abandoned children lies with the local authority. We are also looking carefully at the Refugee Council's latest proposal for assistance with providing advice and information in those cases.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, was concerned with aid measures. That was a matter which also exercised the committee. The committee drew attention to the use of Community aid measures in support of immigration policy. I should remind your Lordships that at the Edinburgh European Council in December a declaration was adopted on the principle which governs the external aspects of migration policy.
One of the principles which was adopted was that the Community and its member states should encourage liberal trade and economic co-operation with countries of emigration in order to promote sustainable social and economic development and so to reduce the economic motives of migration. That was referred to also by some noble Lords. Of course, those are long-term policies—and none the less desirable for that—but they cannot be expected to produce immediate results.
The European Council, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, renewed its condemnation of racism and racist attacks, to which a number of your Lordships also referred.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and my noble friend Lady Flather that it is widely recognised that Britain has established a lead. In that regard I agree with my noble friend that not only has it established a lead on good equal opportunity law and practice and in the field of racial discrimination, but it has established one better than any other country within the European Community. We should like to share our experience and knowledge with our European Community partners—and indeed more widely.
We take the view—on this point I momentarily part company with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood—that European Community legislation is not the right way to take action to improve racial equality. The noble Baroness is keen to have Community legislation on racism and xenophobia. But the Government take the view that the exact legislative arrangements must be a matter for each individual member state in the light of its own specific
476
circumstances. We should like to encourage them to do all that they can to produce systems which are similar in effect and in content to ours.
We may not agree with all the conclusions in the report. There is much more in it that I have not had time to cover. Nevertheless, we fully accept that the report has added in considerable measure to the knowledge which we had in regard to immigration matters within the European Community; and as a result of the report a number of important issues were raised this afternoon by your Lordships in the debate.
I should like again to express my deep appreciation to the noble Baroness and her committee for the excellent work which the sub-committee has done under her chairmanship in producing such a helpful and informed report.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this evening. The members of the committee who spoke, together with my introductory remarks, covered most of the points contained in the report There is perhaps just one matter on which I should like to comment which arose from the remarks of my noble friend Lady Turner when she referred to unaccompanied minors and the question of a minor being returned under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act.
One of the issues with which the committee was concerned was the decisions that are sometimes taken by officers of the carrier which should in fact be exercised by immigration officers and therefore could be subject to appeal. The example given by my noble friend was of an officer of an air company taking an immigration decision. Perhaps the noble Earl would bear that point in mind also when he elaborates on his responses.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, hoped that the committee was not complacent in regard to our anti-discriminatory legislation in the field of race, as did my noble friend, Lord McIntosh. I can assure both noble Lords that in the view of the committee that was not so. We were extremely conscious—in my opening remarks I referred to this fact —that imperfections in our own legislation existed. Nevertheless, as has been underlined by many speakers, the framework that is there is one of the best that exists in Europe and could provide a model.
I am only sorry that the noble Earl, responding on behalf of the Government, could not go further in undertaking to initiate some Community legislation in this sphere. He said that the Government would try to encourage other national governments perhaps to emulate our type of legislation. While that would be a help, like most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, the committee felt that this is an area where the Community should exercise competence.
The noble Earl referred to the tentative nature of the written response which he had sent to me and which I believe, although I was away from the House all last week, has also been circulated to members of the sub-committee. Some of the responses that he gave this afternoon took us marginally further than the

477
written response. I was glad to have that elaboration; for instance, on the making of information available on decisions taken under the third pillar. I am sure that all Members of the House will look forward to the proposals which the noble Earl said the Government would be putting forward.
I was rather surprised by the very determined way in which the Minister dismissed any question of Community competence in the field of common rules. From the evidence the committee had and from the communications received from Community Ministers' meetings, it seemed that there was a difference of opinion on the extent of Community competence in many of the fields covered by the report. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made a forceful case against inter-governmental co-operation and in favour of Community legislation in this field. That reflects the division of opinion that exists not only in this House but in some other European countries. Perhaps only time will tell whether the Community will be able to accept competence in these fields.
The committee's view was that it is a very difficult area. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated, the committee was dealing with two tentative and vague communications from the Commission and not a draft directive. That being so, the committee felt that we should approach it from the point of view of what could be done in a practical way in the immediate future. We hope that our recommendations may be a help in that respect. We also felt that the issues that we raised and the underlying issues which have been raised by a number of noble Lords, including the Minister himself, are ones that need to be debated—and debated not only in this House but throughout the country. We hope that our report will help towards stimulating such a debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1993
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 18th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this scheme sets out to update and improve the method of allocating Scottish Hospital Trust endowment income. This endowment income is used to assist in the care and welfare of NHS patients and staff and examples of use include the purchase of equipment, children's toys and games, Christmas activities and hospital radio services. In devising the scheme, the main concern was to ensure, as far as possible, an equitable distribution of income among health boards and among health boards and NHS trusts where this was relevant while maintaining a connection with the original sums endowed.
The Scottish Hospital Trust was established in 1971 and the legislative provision is now consolidated in Schedule 6 to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Its purpose is to administer and maximise investments from endowments previously managed by
478
regional hospital boards and boards of management. The endowments transferred to the Scottish Hospital Trust were all made before 1947 and pre-date the establishment of the NHS.
The original capital from endowments transferred to the Scottish Hospital Trust is invested by the trust. Income distributed among health boards is that derived from such investments. The current method of allocating Scottish Hospital Trust income is based on £3 per hospital bed plus a share of the balance, allocated in proportion to the health board's share of the total capital funds as transferred to the Scottish Hospital Trust. Initially the bed allocation accounted for the main apportionment. However, the bed method now accounts for less than 10 per cent. of the total income allocated to health boards, the investment portfolio having substantially increased in value over the years. Presently, the endowment fund is valued at £24.2 million and £1.6 million of revenue derived from this fund was available for distribution among health boards for 1991–92.
This new scheme will allow for the division of Scottish Hospital Trust income among health boards and NHS trusts on the basis of the originating capital as transferred to the Scottish Hospital Trust in 1972. It will be for health boards and NHS trusts to reach agreement with each other on the identification and final proportion of such capital. Given that the endowments are very old, the schedules held by the secretaries to the Scottish Hospital Trust, currently Messrs. W & J Burness, WS, will assist in this process. Other relevant documents which the health board and trusts themselves may have will also assist in this process. I should emphasise that the scheme only provides a method for distributing the investment income derived from endowment capital held by the Scottish Hospital Trust to health boards and NHS trusts and that such income is for the benefit of NHS patients and staff. The endowments themselves are not being distributed and will still remain, as they presently do, under the management of the Scottish Hospital Trust. It is also a condition of the scheme that in applying the income, health boards and NHS trusts will take account of any terms and conditions of use attaching to the original endowment.
The new scheme will update the method of distribution in force since 1974 and give NHS trusts relevant endowment income as provided for in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I commend the scheme to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 18th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his elucidation of the scheme. He will know that it has already been considered by the Statutory Instruments Committee in another place. The important point that was stressed—the noble Earl hinted at this himself—is that the scheme is based on the money left by Victorian philanthropists and others who felt that they owed something to the hospitals in their areas. The money

479
was meant to provide additional help and services mainly for poor patients who could not afford to pay anything themselves. They were people who were not covered by hospital trusts, trades union funds or the rather primitive forms of insurance funds.
I wonder whether the Minister can help me on one point. When I was reading through the proceedings of the Statutory Instruments Committee I was slightly surprised that £24.2 million was raising only £1.6 million in interest. It seemed to me that for a sum like that to attract an interest rate of only about 3.2 per cent. the money had not been as well invested as I would have imagined. Even building societies' present grudging interest rates are more than that. Perhaps the Minister would care to add to that. Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether he is able to confirm what his honourable friend Mr. Stewart at the Scottish Office said in another place. His words were that a cast-iron guarantee could be given because in paragraph 3(1) the reference to paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 to the 1978 Act made it clear that the income must be spent on the direct services provided by the National Health Service, that is, they would not be spent on private medicine even within the National Health Service. I wonder whether the Minister is now in a position to answer those questions. Other than that, I am pleased with what he has so far elucidated.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, a total of £1.6 million was distributed to health boards and hospitals for the financial year 1991–92. That included a figure of about £358,000 from the previous financial year's revenue.
As regards the question of interest, I do not believe that the entire £1.6 million is interest. We are looking at investment portfolios, not purely money on deposit. I understand the noble Lord's point about the rate of return on capital funds, but I stress that the fund is administered by professional investment managers. It may be that they have not been doing as good a job as perhaps they should.
I assure the noble Lord that nothing in the scheme alters the basic proposition that the funds with which the scheme is concerned are for use in the NHS, reflecting as far as possible the terms of the original bequest. I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Lord's second point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Penalty for Murder Bill [H.L.]
6.33 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It would be a foolish Member of this House who tried to improve on the speeches which have already been made on this subject over the years; and more recently in the debate in this House on an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill so brilliantly led by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. However, the Government should be left in no doubt that the case will be restated,
480
updated and kept in the public domain because the mandatory life sentence for murder is a legal impostor that sullies our judicial system.
At the outset, I make clear that I strongly favour long sentences for cruel, savage and calculating murder. There should most certainly be life sentences for those who deserve them. I was so committed to the need for appropriate custodial sentences that on 14th February 1978 I introduced a Bill in another place to give the right of appeal against lenient sentences. That was the first Bill of its kind. At the time I was derided and wrongly accused of introducing double jeopardy since I was speaking only of convicted people. There was no question of double jeopardy. I wanted there to be a right of appeal against undue leniency on the part of some judges. I failed to persuade another place on the need for that Bill and it was rejected by an overwhelming vote of 293 to 30. But, having refused to support my Bill, the Government adopted the idea a few years later and it was embodied in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Therefore I am a hard-liner so far as concerns brutal criminals.
What drew me to the question of mandatory life sentences was their imposition on battered women who after years of domestic violence were driven in despair to killing their spouses. The seemingly obvious defence of provocation was often found to be useless in a court of law. The reason for it was that case law on provocation was based on a ruling in 1949 by the admirable Mr. Justice Devlin (as he then was). He said that provocation had to cause sudden and temporary loss of self-control to be an effective defence. He believed that if there was time to cool down, the killing was intentional and so it was murder. That view of temporary loss of self-control was quite understandable then when we did not appreciate the effect of violence on the human mind. We now acknowledge that some—possibly many —people do not readily regain normal self-control after sustained brutality. That was acknowledged in Vietnam where American troops suffered great brutality; it was also acknowledged in relation to British troops who fought in the Gulf and British hostages in the Middle East. They required special treatment—rightly so—and so do battered women. I believe it is wrong to insist, as the law now does, that self-control is regained soon after violence. I do not accept that for one moment. This is particularly true when the threat of violence remains. A battered woman, even when her injuries are beginning to heal, may be suffering from the expectation of further violence.
I brought in a Bill in another place to widen the definition of provocation to take account of the effects of domestic violence. The Government refused to support that as well. The best way of proceeding is to press for the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder. It is quite nonsensical to give precisely the same sentence to a brutalised woman driven beyond the brink by sustained violence as to vicious, sadistic murderers. Yet that is precisely what we do in Britain today. It is absurd. One argument put forward for the mandatory life sentence is that a life is deliberately taken, and so it is. It is claimed that they are all

481
heinous crimes, carrying the same moral culpability and therefore requiring the same mandatory sentence—life imprisonment.
There is no room for such fanciful Alice in Wonderland concepts in any realistic judicial system; and their absurdity was magisterially demolished by no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor, who said:
"Murder … consists in a whole bundle of offences of vastly differing degrees of culpability, ranging from brutal, cynical and repeated offences like the so-called 'Moors murders', to the almost venial, if objectively immoral, mercy-killing of a beloved partner."
I do not think anyone could state the situation clearer than that.
The issue of the mandatory life sentence goes wider than battered women. It applies to all murder; but the reality of the sentence, as many noble Lords have explained, turns out to be a bizarre fraud perpetrated in British courts of laws. It is a sham, compelling honourable British judges to create a false impression in court—make no bones about that—to pronounce sentences which they know will not be carried out. It makes them mislead the public. They know, when they pronounce life imprisonment, that the convicted person will not serve it. It will more likely be some 11 years. In some cases more, and in others much less. The judges co-operate in this by sending their view of the minimum sentence to be served to the Home Office where the eventual length of sentence will be determined.
The public judicial imposition of a mandatory life sentence is in practice replaced by the private decision of a Home Office Minister who may or may not be influenced by a private communication from the judge about the minimum sentence to be served. This privacy undermines the principle of justice being seen to be done. Stripped of the judicial facade, our criminal justice system for murder is one in which a politician in secret, rather than a judge in public, determines the sentence. How absurd for a so-called public judicial system!
In addition to flouting the fundamental concept of the separation of the executive and judiciary, our system denies the basic right of appeal, and it replaces valid sentencing in open court with a formal phrase and confers the power to determine the sentence on someone who has not sat throughout the trial. Yet that person determines sentence. It is preposterous. It is not only grossly unfair, it distorts. No wonder that distinguished judges complain that juries will not convict obvious cases of murder because the mandatory life sentence is inappropriate.
Some people claim there are genuine obstacles to change; but few in the judiciary think so. The former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, has said:
"There is no greater difficulty in assessing the proper length of a determinate sentence for murder than there is in doing the same for any other form of serious crime."
A former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, thinks the public would object to this change.
In the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, he argued that a change would be extremely damaging to confidence in the criminal justice system. He said that
482
Parliament was saying to those concerned by the abolition of capital punishment, "Don't worry. The unique nature of the crime of murder will be marked by a special punishment." He noted that even when murderers were released, it was only on licence, and he claimed that the sentence would last for life. I do not believe for a moment that the public is impressed by the distinction between complete freedom and freedom on licence. Nor do I think there is much support for the view that all murders are equally heinous crimes. If there were, there would be pressure for genuine life sentences. But there is no such pressure.
In my view, the public is divided and confused about the mandatory life sentence. Some think it really does mean imprisonment for life. Others, equally mistakenly, believe that it means 10 or so years for even the most vicious murders. Few know of the elaborate and secretive procedure that takes place. It is time this was ended. With determinate sentences for murder the judiciary, not the executive, gives a public verdict on the seriousness of the crime. By ending mandatory life sentences, we can avoid the anomalies, false impressions and injustices that now exist —and we can win public support for our judiciary. I recognise that there will be no change until it is agreed in another place. That is how it should be. But I hope this Bill will progress and give the other place another opportunity to reconsider this important issue. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
6.48 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, the penalty for murder has exercised this House for over a quarter of a century, and we can be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for bringing it before us again this afternoon, and to have done so in such a powerful and persuasive speech. This is not the moment to go back over the whole history, but it is worth going back to that historic turning point in 1965 when the death penalty was suspended, its abolition being made permanent four years later.
In this House the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, although he had previously been a supporter of capital punishment, argued against its replacement by a fixed penalty of life imprisonment. Indeed, he felt so strongly that when the legislation was before Parliament he pressed an amendment at Committee stage and carried it against the Government. That amendment would have given the trial judge in a case of murder discretion to mark the gravity of the offence and to signify the public feeling of revulsion by passing whatever sentence, whether determinate or indeterminate, he considered necessary after having taken account of any mitigating or aggravating factors.
The object of the amendment, Lord Parker said, was very simple. It was,
"to abolish once and for all a fixed penalty for murder; in other words, to prevent life imprisonment from being the only sentence which can be passed.—[Official Report, 27/7/65; col. 1211–12.]

483
Eleven Peers who held, or had held, high judicial office took part in the vote. All save one, the Lord Chancellor of the day (being bound to accept the view of the Government of which he was a member), voted for the amendment. But then, as now, the amendment was not acceptable to the Government, and was reversed at a later stage.
What a pity the voice of the judiciary was not heeded at that stage. Had it been, then the whole sorry business of the mandatory penalty and what it has brought in its train could have been avoided. Surely it was no coincidence that Lord Parker's successor but one as Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, speaking from the same Cross-Benches and deploying similar arguments based on practical experience, was a sponsor of the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in 1991 which was identical in wording to the Bill now introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. That amendment too was carried against the Government, by a majority of nearly 100 on a substantial cross-party vote. Twelve Peers who held, or had held, high judicial office voted. Once again, all save one, the Lord Chancellor of the day, supported the amendment.
In between those two events, there had been the very full inquiry by the Select Committee of this House on Murder and Life Imprisonment in the Session 1988–89, of which some members, including myself, are present in the Chamber this afternoon. A mass of evidence was taken in public sessions held in London and Edinburgh. The arguments for and against the retention of the mandatory life sentence for murder were subjected to a rigorous scrutiny, and its abolition was recommended.
The criticisms of the mandatory penalty for murder are now so well known that they hardly bear further repetition. The parrot cry that murder is the most heinous of all crimes is thoroughly discredited, based as it is on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the scope of the offence of murder is so wide.
The imposition of the same sentence in each and every case, from the most brutal planned assassination to the most pathetic case of mercy killing, or the pub fight between two close friends where the intention was not to kill but to cause serious bodily harm, cannot do other than lead to injustice. English juries, thank Heaven, like the judges, can recognize injustice when they see it. The result can be verdicts of manslaughter rather than murder on the grounds of diminished responsibility or provocation even when the evidence for those defences may be thin. When that escape route—for that is what it is—is not open, there is mounting pressure to broaden the application of the existing defences. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has spoken effectively about the situation of battered women in relation to the definition of the defence of provocation.
Let us pause here for a moment to reflect on a recent case, which has been raised in this House: that of Dr. Nigel Cox. Dr. Cox is the hospital consultant, now entirely properly restored to his post, who was tried and found guilty at the Crown court of the attempted murder of a terminally ill patient by giving
484
her a lethal injection. He received a 12-month suspended sentence. The trial judge made a point of saying in advance of passing sentence at the end of the trial that he was not contemplating a custodial sentence. If, on the facts (as might well have been the case) it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injection had been the cause of the old lady's death, the charge would have had to be murder, and the penalty would have had to be life imprisonment. It cannot be right to allow a discrepancy in sentencing on that scale when the act was identical, the intention the same.
If we turn to public attitudes, the life sentence is, in a memorable phrase used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,
"a sentence which nobody can understand".
Most—although perhaps not all—of the general public are aware that life imprisonment does not mean imprisonment for life but are bewildered as to what it does mean.
The Home Office seems to be trying out a new line of approach to those who have an ear well-attuned to statements from that source. At any rate, it is not one that I have heard put in this form before. My noble friend Lord Ferrers assured the House in answer to a Question on 27th January about the release on licence of the murderer of a police officer that,
"a life sentence is a sentence for life of which part is spent in custody".—[Official Report, 27/1/93; col. 1261.]
Although (as the Minister has since acknowledged) it would have been more accurate to have said, "A life sentence is a sentence for life, all or part of which may be spent in custody", this formulation fails to correspond with the definition of the penalty for murder which is contained in Section 1 of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. There the statute plainly states:
"a person convicted of murder shall … be sentenced to imprisonment for life".
Therein lies the heart of the problem of public perception.
Since the law recognises no categories of murder—noble Lords who remember the ill-fated Homicide Act 1957 will agree that they were found to be untenable—and since no sentencing discretion is permitted to the court, then the only way to differentiate between relative degrees of gravity is by executive action. That means involving Ministers, and the civil servants who advise them, in what are perilously close to sentencing decisions on the quantum of punishment as it is reflected in the period of time to be spent in custody.
It is that feature which has led to the adverse judgments by the European Court of Human Rights—and to several cases brought before our domestic courts, both of which are likely to continue to bring about piecemeal changes in the procedures governing life sentences.
There is much more to be said, but I shall stop there. The Bill is short, clear and straightforward. It would remove an acknowledged abuse, and it deserves the support of the House. Sensitivity towards public opinion is no longer sufficient reason for clinging to the status quo.
7 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for bringing forward this proposal today in the form of a Private Member's Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will forgive me if I say that I do not know whether he or I would be the more surprised if the Bill were to proceed straight on to the statute book. I do not believe that that is the object of bringing the matter forward today. I believe that the real object is to put this matter back into the public domain and to ensure that it remains there and continues to be debated until it is acted upon by the Government.
It has already been commented that this proposal has been debated at great length and in great detail on several occasions in your Lordships' House in the past few years. The most recent was in April 1991 during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. Re-reading those reports, it is clear that every conceivable argument has already been used on both sides of the House. Indeed, if any noble Lord were to come forward today with a wholly new argument it would almost certainly he totally unsound. In those circumstances, not much is to be gained by at least my repeating the arguments that have been used previously. This is primarily an occasion where one should stand up and be counted, and I am delighted to stand up and be counted in support of the proposal in the Bill, and to do so not just on my own behalf but on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues.
I am aware, of course, that the debate will conclude with unremitting opposition being expressed by the Government. I find that an encouraging sign. On present form, it means almost inevitably that within a month or two the Government will be expressing enthusiastic support for the proposition. I looked at how the opposition was expressed on the last occasion in your Lordships' House when the case was put on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who is now basking in rather warmer climes. The noble Lord appeared to make three points, all of which I believe are equally unsound.
The noble Lord said, first, that taking human life was something uniquely horrible. That simply does not tie in with the facts. Taking human life can be, and often is in a murder case, an instance of someone using grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and in fact causing death. That is murder. It is idle to suggest that such an instance is anything like as horrible as some of the cases that come before the courts where people deliberately inflict sadistic torture on their fellow human beings, even though death is not the result. My mind goes back to some of the gangland warfare cases in London in which I had the misfortune to be involved professionally, many years ago now. It is not right to say that such instances are not far more horrible than some of the murder cases—not all of them—that take place at the lower end of the spectrum of gravity.
Secondly, it was suggested the last time around—if I may use that expression—that it is therefore appropriate that a unique sentence of life imprisonment should be passed. It was unique, it was
486
suggested, because it lasted for life. It lasted for life, not in the sense that the defendant was kept in prison for life, but in the sense that for the rest of his life after his release he was subject to be recalled on licence. That is sheer sophistry by the Government. No judge ever passes a sentence of imprisonment for seven, eight, or 10 years, followed by being subject to recall for the rest of one's life. The sentence that is passed is a sentence of imprisonment for life. It is idle to suggest that that is a unique sentence, because it lasts for the whole of one's life, in the sense that the power of recall lasts for the whole of one's life.
The third argument that was used was that if we abandon the mandatory life sentence, that will in some way diminish public confidence in our criminal justice system. Nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot help asking, first: what public confidence are we talking about? The fact is, as we are all aware, that it is at a very low ebb at the moment. I do not suggest that that is so entirely because of the absurdity of the mandatory life sentence, but it does not help that we have a principle of sentencing for murder which is widely perceived as being illogical, unfair and totally secretive in its administration.
If we adopt the proposal in the Bill, it would increase public confidence in our system. One can perhaps test that by looking at the situation in relation to murders at both ends of the spectrum. In relation to the most serious, dreadful murder cases, the present sentence is one of life imprisonment. That is widely perceived by the public as being a sentence of anything from seven to 10 years, or perhaps a little more in an especially bad case, followed, as I say, by the fact that there may be a licence and a power to recall upon licence.
If, instead of that sentence, the judge were empowered and encouraged not merely to make a recommendation—that takes us into an area of administrative law which the general public do not understand—but to pass the appropriate long sentence of 20, 30, 40 years, or whatever it may be, in respect of the appalling cases, it would give the public confidence in our criminal justice system. If there are any noble Lords who still look back with nostalgia at the days of capital punishment, I am sure that they would agree, on reflection, that it is far more satisfactory from their point of view that tough, heavy sentences should be passed in the small handful of extremely serious murder cases, than the comparatively innocuous—because it is widely misunderstood as being so innocuous—sentence of life imprisonment.
At the other end of the scale, one has murder cases of which examples have been given in your Lordships' House many times: the parents who put a totally deformed child out of its misery; the case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, of the woman who decides, after years and years of intolerable ill-treatment, to take the life of the man who has been causing that ill-treatment. The public do not regard it as sensible that in those cases the judge has to pass a sentence of life imprisonment, because the public knows full well that in such a case the defendant will not be kept there for the term of his or her life, or anything remotely like it. Again, it would

487
be more real that the judge should have the power to pass the appropriate sentence which may not be a sentence of imprisonment or, if it is, a short, simple term of imprisonment.
At present the problem is dealt with because often as not the jury takes the matter into its own hands and refuses to find the defendant guilty of murder, although by any reasonable view of the law that is what the crime is. The jury stretches the law to interpret the defendant's behaviour as being subject to provocation when it is not or, alternatively, it finds on the most tenuous evidence that is not supportable that there is diminished responsibility. The jury does so as a device to enable the judge to overcome the necessity of passing a mandatory sentence.
I believe that at both ends of the spectrum public confidence in our criminal justice system would be increased if judges were given the discretion to impose determinate sentences. It is with great enthusiasm that I support the proposal put forward in the Bill.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I too refreshed my memory as to what was said on this subject in recent debates in this House and in another place. The Government have used three recurring basic propositions. With great respect, they would cause the forensic eyebrows of a first-year law student to be raised more than somewhat. The first is that murder is a unique offence. That is a truism. Arson is a unique offence and so is forgery and any offence which has its own special ingredients. That proposition adds absolutely nothing to the debate.
The second proposition is that murder is a uniquely heinous or wicked crime. I shall not take up your Lordships' time by looking at the wide range which the offence can cover. It does so for the simple reason that the definition is so wide. If, as some suggest, the definition were limited—and I do not support it—that it should require an intent to kill, that would narrow the offence. But there is added an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. This involves widening the offence considerably.
In the past we tried to categorise murders; putting them into special categories of seriousness. Your Lordships may remember that in our debate on 6th November 1989 at col. 454 we were reminded by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, of what was said in regard to the Homicide Act 1957, which did precisely that. Lord Canesford said:
"If you wish to dispose of your wife and not suffer the penalty of death you must not shoot her or drown her, but you could stab her, strangle her, poison her or set her on fire and you would get away with it".
It was because the categorisation of murders proved to be so unsustainable that we now have no categorisation.
Examples have been given to your Lordships of the anomalies which will occur in cases in which the public see no real seriousness in the offence but yet the jury are obliged to convict of murder. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example which is seldom referred to. It is a complete defence to a charge of murder to say, "I used no more force than was reasonably
488
necessary to defend myself". However, the calculation of how much force is reasonable may be difficult. In a moment of deep anxiety a person may obviously exceed what is the reasonable force that can be used. He may fire a gun when what he should do is to strike with a stick. If the accused exceeds the bounds of reasonable self defence that does not make the offence one of manslaughter; as the law stands, it is murder. To group it together with the terrorist-type of case is an absurdity.
The Government's third proposition is that murder should attract a unique sentence. There is nothing unique about imprisonment for life because it is imposed for a wide variety of crimes. What is unique in regard to murder is the automatic imposition of life imprisonment. It is that which is being criticised.
One has wondered why the Government have resisted supporting the proposition that there should no longer be a mandatory life sentence, in particular when the former Lord Chief Justice has spoken in favour of its abolition. Indeed, I am instructed to inform the House that that is the view of the present Lord Chief Justice. I have heard two explanations. One is cynical and hitherto I have rejected it. The cynical explanation is that no body of politicians, and certainly no bureaucrats, happily give up power. Considerable power is centred in the Home Office in regard to those convicted of murder because it decides when release should occur.
That is not so in cases in which life imprisonment has been imposed discretionary by the judge; for instance, in cases of manslaughter as a result of diminished responsibility or manslaughter by reason of provocation. For that category of case there is now set up a tribunal, presided over by a judge who has the assistance of a psychiatrist and a chief probation officer. After the offender has served what is known as the appropriate sentence for retribution and deterrence—that is the appropriate part of the sentence attributable to punishment—they decide whether it is safe for the accused person to be allowed out. That is a difficult decision, in particular when manslaughter was committed by a person suffering from diminished responsibility.
But for the wide range of murder cases no such tribunal has been set up. That was recently resisted by the Home Office when the provision was included in the Criminal Justice Bill during its passage through this House. It was removed in another place. One asks, why? The other basis is that the public would lose confidence in the administration of justice if sentences were imposed at the judge's discretion because the destruction of a person's life is so unique that it requires such a punishment.
In the report of the Select Committee, to which reference has already been made, the reaction of the public was illustrated by two cases. The first was the reaction to the deliberate taking of life in the case of the Maw's sisters who were sentenced to three years imprisonment. They had deliberately killed their drunken father and their sentence was harshly criticised for its severity. In the case of one of them the sentence was reduced to six months. The second case was that of the Thompson sisters who shot their

489
tyrannical father as he lay in bed having an epileptic fit. They were given a two-year suspended sentence. In the former case provocation was accepted as the defence, and thus reduced the offence from murder to manslaughter. In the latter case diminished responsibility reduced the offence from murder to manslaughter. However, the public seems to have been well able to recognise the powerful mitigation which existed in those two cases.
The Select Committee was mindful of the anxiety that the Government might be criticised for "going soft". Paragraph 178 of the report states:
"After the introduction of a discretionary sentence for murder, the Committee anticipate that the average length of time served under a life sentence would be considerably longer than it is now".
That is for the very simple reason that life sentences would then be reserved essentially for the particularly outrageous murders or for those where there was a high degree of uncertainty about the risk by reason in particular of the accused's mental condition.
The committee went on to say—and in reality this should put the Government's mind at rest—
"The Committee expect that their proposals will lead to very lengthy penal sanctions being set in the most grave cases. In some cases, this may result in imprisonment for the rest of the prisoner's life".
As matters stand, the sentence of life imprisonment has been grossly devalued. It has caused the public to believe that nowadays the average length of sentence served is some nine years, which may well be not far from reality because the relatively moderate cases are mixed in with the very serious ones.
I invite the Government to show the courage of their convictions as described in the Government White Paper published some three years ago entitled Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public. It was there stated that the Government's main aim was:
"To ensure that convicted criminals in England and Wales are punished justly and suitably according to the seriousness of their offence".
As I understand it, that is what is known as "the just desert approach". I can see no reason why we should single out one crime to which that philosophy should not apply.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, after four such formidable contributions, all in total agreement, I am tempted to feel superfluous. I remember reading somewhere that the volume generated by 27 singers is only twice that of one singer. After four contributions of such resonance, I venture to join in the choir for only two reasons: first, because like others of your Lordships, I have ventured to argue the matter in the past and, secondly, because I was anxious to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Ashley for giving us this opportunity to discuss the matter.
This question arose initially from matters raised by the judiciary as it encountered the problem in practice. It is now compassed about with a great cloud of witnesses: the Butler committee on mentally abnormal offenders in 1975; the advisory council on the penal system in 1978; the all-party penal affairs group in 1986; and the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, to which reference has already been made in
490
the course of the debate. Of course, there is also the very well-read and cogently argued book by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, himself a former Home Office Minister, in which I first encountered some of the arguments which have been raised in the course of the debate.
The case against the mandatory sentence can be stated in two sentences. Murder is a comprehensive label for a whole spectrum of offences. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said to us, it is a very wide definition. Offences may range from the deliberate and brutal killing of a total stranger for profit to a heart-broken reaction to marital infidelity. It cannot be right that they all merit the same sentence.
Nor do I believe that the public do not understand that point. In November 1990 BBC 2's "Public Eye" commissioned a Gallup poll. The first question that people were asked was:
"Do you think that there should be a mandatory life sentence for murder?"
The replies amounted to a dead heat: 47 per cent. said yes and 47 per cent said no. The interviewees were then asked:
"Do you believe that there should be a sentence of life imprisonment for someone who terminates the life of a terminally ill relative?"
Only 10 per cent. said yes to that proposition. I believe that the reactions of the public depend very greatly upon the questions which they are asked.
Of course, judges have commented in desperation over and over again on how much court time is taken up arguing about the artificial concept of diminished responsibility when the real issue should be how the public can best be protected.
How do we find ourselves in this situation? Again, I remember that the history of the matter was traced by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his book. Prior to the 1965 Act, it used to be said in undiscriminating terms that murder was a uniquely wicked offence which required a unique punishment. In those days that meant the death sentence. However the death sentence was never unique to murder. On the statute book at present there are death sentences for offences for which no one in his right mind would have argued had we started with a clean sheet. But they are still there.
What was unique about murder was that the sentence was mandatory. When the death penalty for murder was abolished in 1965, those who opposed its abolition were softened up with the concession that murder would still carry a unique sentence not, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, reminded us that a life sentence is unique to murder. It never was. What is unique is that it should be mandatory. That is the logic of how we reached the present position and it is the logic of Alice in Wonderland.
As your Lordships have reminded us, this matter was debated extensively during the passage of what became the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In another place it was debated in Committee and again on Report. In your Lordships' House it was debated and amended with the support of a formidable body of judicial opinion. It was debated again in another place

491
as regards that amendment. The result was predetermined not by the merits of the argument but by the Whips.
However, in the course of those debates, I, like some of your Lordships, attempted to identify the arguments which had been set forth against the proposal. I was rather more successful than the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, because I identified four—that is two in addition to the two which the noble Lord mentioned. The first has already been mentioned in the course of the debate. It does not matter that a life sentence may not really be what it says. We deny discretion to the judiciary but we give it instead to the Home Office, which decides when release is appropriate.
There are two difficulties about that. One was indicated by my noble friend Lord Ashley. Individual freedom should be determined by the court after a proper trial and with a right of appeal. The Home Office is an arm of the Executive. In fairness, it recognises that it would not normally be an appropriate body to decide for how long someone should be deprived of his liberty.
The second problem is that, if the length of custody is to bear some relation to the degree of guilt, there will be cases in which the life sentence will in practice mean only a relatively short period in custody. Nothing is more calculated to bring into total disrepute the whole concept of a life sentence. It will be said that the life sentence is a sham and a soft option. Perhaps even more worryingly, there may be a danger that, in order to avoid that consequence, some offenders may be kept in custody for longer than the case warrants.
The other argument which was adduced in the course of the debates in 1991 was that, in a recent Division in another place on the return of capital punishment for murder, some Members had been induced to vote against the resumption of capital punishment on the basis that the alternative would be the mandatory life sentence. It was said it would be a breach of faith now to tamper with the life sentence. I was not greatly impressed by that argument in 1991. I wonder whether it will be used at this stage. If so, I wonder for how long it can be allowed to inhibit all further debate on the issue. However, I hope we shall not hear it in the course of our debates on my noble friend's Bill.
As my noble friend said, no one is suggesting that there may not be cases where a life sentence is appropriate. My noble friend's Bill does not seek to remove the powers of the court to pass that sentence in an appropriate case. It seeks merely to enable the judge to consider the question of whether a life sentence is appropriate, because the alternative, the present position, is a compulsion to pass a life sentence whether or not it is appropriate, or even in a situation where it is clearly inappropriate. I believe that historians in the future will wonder how anyone could ever have sought to argue for that proposition.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I find myself in most distinguished company tonight on this Bill. I am glad, however, that my noble friend has decided to tread deeply into the philosophical, emotional and moral issues which come before us from time to time. This is a much better and wiser place than the other to discuss some of the deeper questions of human existence and purpose. I hope he will not tire of the work that he has started on. If there is anything to be said about the debate tonight, it is that it has to be one of as many as it will take to get this Bill through. I think that the time will come when we shall say to the Government firmly, "We do not care what you say. It does not matter what you say. You must listen to the will of the House and the will of Parliament".
Governments by convention do not introduce Bills of this kind at all. This is one of the moral issues which divide the parties and give the Whips a troublesome time as the Government are not certain where they stand. They leave it to the House to find its way. We should consider that governments had no views on dangerous dogs between 1871 and 1991. Can one believe that they had nothing to say about the law of abortion for the 20 years in which the Abortion Act 1967 was assailed in another place, session after session? They would not even provide time for the House to reach its own conclusions on the matter. However, in the end they had to take a hand in the matter, and a good one it was too! They brought to an end in a matter of hours a controversy which had strewn the work and the expense of Parliament for 20 years.
I have no experience in the matter we are discussing that would be of benefit to your Lordships' House. However, I have had two experiences in my life regarding this issue that profoundly affected me. The first occurred many years ago when I was asked by the Revenue Players if I would take a small part in a play, the first act of which concerned a judge in the fullness of his robes and dignity pronouncing the sentence of death. I sat in the full garb of a justice. A phantom hand came out of the darkness and put the black cap on my wig which made me look more ridiculous than ever. I had to announce in sepulchral tones the dread words that the law prescribed when a judge sentenced a prisoner to death. The papers stated that weeping could be heard in the court and that the prisoner stood transfixed as if he was incapable of realising what was happening. I had to endure several rehearsals of the play to acquire the right poise, the right voice and the appropriate sense of dread. By the time I performed in the play I began to feel that I alone was a hanging judge.
I have visited constituents serving life sentences in Wakefield prison. Wakefield was the catchment area for the Sowerby constituency. There were several lifers in the prison from my constituency. Escapes had occurred from prisons and the late Lord Mountbatten was appointed to consider how best to prevent those escapes. When I visited Wakefield prison I believe it was the deputy governor who told me that he deplored escapes from prison but what worried him much more than that was how to keep 147 lifers sane. However,

493
the public do not care about that. If a prisoner escapes, the public are worried and the newspapers write excited articles about it. The public are advised not to accost people who may be escaped prisoners. However, when the prisoners are recaptured and are safely back in prison—for what length of stay nobody either knows or cares—the minds of the public are at rest.
I had interviews with several young men who had been sentenced to life imprisonment. They only just escaped the death sentence because the change in the law had only just taken place. One of the young men had married a young woman. They were both very young. They had their first child. They were both staunch Methodists and their families were well respected. The shock to the town of Todmorden was acute when the news of the crime emerged. The young man's sleep had been disturbed by the crying of his baby. He found that unbearable. One night he got up to try to comfort the crying child and he flung it against the wall and killed it. No one was more conscious of the enormity of what he had done than that young man within a few minutes of the crime.
After the young man had spent about eight years in prison I wrote to the then Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Brooke. I wrote that the young man was keeping his marriage going and that his wife had said she would stand by him. She had visited him regularly in prison for nearly eight years. I asked what was the point of keeping the young man in prison any longer. Finally, I received an answer that the sentence was a mark of the public's disapproval of the crime of murder. It was a matter of public opinion and of what the public would say. As a matter of fact the public in the young man's local area were pressing the Government for his release. He was released in due course and his marriage survived, I am glad to say.
It is too much to expect that when the noble Viscount gives the advice of the Government he will tell us anything that is worth listening to. He will no doubt tell us the truth, but I guess that it will not be the whole truth. We are dealing with the politics of crime. The Home Office has taken such a battering in recent years from the tabloid press that it is scared of what the Sun newspaper might say. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the Government being accused of being soft on murder. Now, when even the Labour Party is apparently promoting law and order to the top of the political agenda, is a difficult time to ask the Government to agree to anything which might suggest to the unthinking public that they have gone soft on murder, because it might be thought that if they are soft on murder they will be soft on everything else. The trouble is that there is such a lack of confidence in the Government at present that they are almost afraid to speak. I am afraid that we cannot even hope.
Noble Lords will expect me to say that I am opposed to all mandatory sentences. The Government themselves created a mandatory sentence in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which we dealt with as recently as 26th January. The Government themselves, despite the fear of mandatory sentences, have introduced one of the three Acts that contain them.
494
That is leading to just as many miscarriages of justice as the one that we are discussing tonight, although at a very much lower level. The injustice and inflexibility exist. I am against all mandatory sentences which deny the courts some discretion on matters within their jurisdiction. Imagine magistrates sitting for hours hearing a case and being told that when they reach their verdict properly on the evidence and convict the accused person they can pass only one sentence.
I do not believe that there should be any sentence of life imprisonment anyway. In this House we passed a Private Member's Bill not so long ago defining life imprisonment as the maximum sentence for rape and for attempted rape. Those were not mandatory sentences but the legislation raised the limit of detention for those crimes to life imprisonment whereas that sentence had not previously appeared on the criminal calendar for rape. Therefore we have to be careful when we increase the severity of sentences.
I sincerely hope that there will be no fudging tonight on this Bill. We should register as frequently as we can the view of the House on this subject and fight the matter out, otherwise we shall become lost in a struggle for pre-eminence over the severity with which governments are to stamp out crime—which, of course, they will not be able to do.
A great many theories about the source of crime are misplaced. We know that in this matter one cannot win. In the case of the doctor which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned, the nation would have been affronted had the law taken its predictable course in his case. However, I also recall the case of a young lady who was sentenced to life imprisonment for throwing petrol over her husband and setting light to him. She was able to plead grievous treatment by her husband. Was there not a show of public support for her release, and when she was released did she not receive a heroine's welcome when she returned to her friends and family? If the mandatory sentence seems unduly harsh there are complaints. In other cases it is not thought to be sufficiently severe for a particular crime when people say of the perpetrator, "Nothing is too bad for him".
These matters are troublesome. However, all that has been said tonight leads us along one straight course. Many of us have been here before. I feel as if I have been here all the time. Certainly I remember the valiant pioneering days of the late Mr. Sidney Silverman and Leslie Hale, who later came to your Lordships' House. This is where the initial battles were fought; and very difficult they were. We tried to make the distinction between capital punishment and non-capital punishment. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, the system of degrees of murder introduced in Rab Butler's time was a failure because of the absurdities which arose. The noble and learned Lord gave striking examples of the ways in which one could get rid of one's wife without being charged with capital murder, but if one went out with a revolver in one's pocket and broke into a shop and shot the shopkeeper then one appeared on a charge of capital murder.
I hope that the noble Viscount will play a more dignified role tonight than merely acting as the voice

495
of the lowest common denominator in the Home Office. I sympathise with him. I sympathise with all the Ministers in the Home Office, and the Home Office as a whole, in having so many explosive and emotional issues packed into their area of responsibility. This is one of many.
Let us now ask my noble friend Lord Longford to speak in his traditional way on this subject. No noble Lord has shown more courage in his attitude towards the process of law in cases of this kind than my noble friend Lord Longford, so much so that he has been regarded as a crackpot. I have heard atrocious judgments of that kind passed on him whereas he is one of the most noble of our noble Lords. I hope that when the time comes to celebrate the great victory the name of Frank Longford will be remembered in your Lordships' House.
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am so overwhelmed that I hardly dare rise. I feel a mixture of emotions but above all gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. We older citizens in this House — although I do not see many of the very oldest here tonight—look upon him as our senior prefect. To be praised by the senior prefect is praise indeed. I return the compliment by saying that he made a most powerful and eloquent speech which was up to his usual high standard.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for introducing the Bill, I offer him strong support, as have all the other speakers. I am well aware of his social concern over many years. My mind goes back to the disablement legislation in 1970 over which he played such a prominent part and which I had the honour of carrying through your Lordships' House.
I hesitate to pit my first-hand knowledge of convicted murderers against those whose professional experience takes them into that area. To put it crudely, I have been employed perhaps to minister justice to them. However, I venture to think that few amateurs have had as much contact with those same convicted murderers over the past half century.
One strong reason for supporting the Bill—it fits in with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said so eloquently—is the lamentable way, in some respects, in which life prisoners are treated at present. I refer to sentence and the date of release. Some people say that life should always mean life. I do not believe that any noble Lord in this House would say that. I was a little nervous about something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said. He seemed to imply that sometimes life should mean life. I do not believe that that is a very human way of looking at the situation. Let us take the extreme case of a dangerous terrorist who does not repent. I believe that the noble and learned Lord agrees that there should be a judicial tribunal which can consider the matter from time to time. The present treatment of life prisoners in regard to release is unsatisfactory. At some point a prisoner receives a message from some official in the Executive to say that he has been given a date for review and possibly for tariff. I shall return to the subject of tariffs
496
in a moment. I know well one prisoner who has now been in prison for 27 years. He has twice been recommended by the local review committee for parole. He is still in prison without prospect of coming out. It may be said, "It is politically impossible, my dear chap. You don't understand the real world. The Minister would lose caste. He might even lose his job if he let this prisoner out". If that belief were propounded—I hope that no one in your Lordships' House would propound it—I would view it with the utmost contempt.
I now refer to another case. It has not been mentioned so far as I am aware in your Lordships' House. I have visited a lady in Holloway more than once. She was convicted of murder. I have to accept that that was rightly so. She herself does not reject that it was in its own terms a correct decision. She was convicted of the murder of her husband's mistress after herself being ejected from the house. She was not present when the murder was committed. She is a quiet little person who would certainly have no control over anybody. She would be unable to employ a hit man or force anyone to commit the murder. For whatever reason, two other people murdered the mistress; and this lady had used damning words, words which obviously involved her in the plan to commit the murder, and words which she bitterly regrets today. I do not say that she bitterly regrets them because they have landed her in prison for many years but because she realises how wrong they were. However, that lady has now been in prison for six years.
Recently she received a letter from an official. I must not say an anonymous official, although that is how people refer to such people; presumably the official put a name to the letter. However, it was from an official of whom I had never heard, and neither had she. She was told that after 17 years in prison she will come up for review. I understand that that means that she will have a tariff of 20 years. When she receives a tariff even of 20 years it does not mean that she will be released. A dangerous person is not released when his or her tariff is completed. But no one could possibly believe that this quiet little person is dangerous. The hope is that she will be released after 20 years. That is the most optimistic assumption at present.
Does anyone really believe that someone like that should spend 20 years in prison? Under the provisions in the excellent Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for 20 years in prison she would need to receive a sentence of 30 years. We have an eminent judge present and another learned in the law. Does anyone really believe that 30 years is an appropriate sentence for a person who was not even present when the murder was committed and had no control over the murder?
That is why I prefer the noble Lord's Bill. It would provide justice for people such as that lady and so many others. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was kind enough to refer to my long experience of the subject. I can only say that I can think of a considerable number of people, some of whom I have known at first hand and others about whom I know a great deal, whose plight is similar.

497
I ask the Government two questions. I gave the Minister notice of them this morning. I hope that he has had time to look into the issues. How many life prisoners at present still have not been given a tariff? The first person to whom I referred has had no tariff after 27 years. My second question is connected with the first. Is it the case that at present a prisoner who in the mind of the Home Office has a tariff of more than 20 years is not told the tariff; it is only if one has a tariff of 20 years or less, such as the woman to whom I referred, that one is given the tariff? If that is true it is an abomination. I believe that if one's tariff is understood in the official world to be more than 20 years one is not told what the tariff is.
I put that matter plainly. The Minister has had notice of the question. I ask him whether he defends the position. If he shrugs his shoulders and says, "It is not my fault", I agree that it is not his fault. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he was sorry for the Minister. I too feel sorry for him. I feel such admiration for his uncle, Mr. David Astor. He is just about the best friend prisoners have in this country. I feel sorry if the noble Viscount fails to live up to his uncle's standards. The Minister is torn between two conflicting forces: the Home Office and his uncle. I hope that he will speak more in the terms of his uncle than the Home Office.
7.57 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as is always the case when speaking from the Dispatch Box on a Private Member's Bill, I am obliged to preface my remarks by saying that we do not take a party point of view on such Bills. Therefore anything I say is my own belief and is not to be construed as the opinion of my party.
I agreed with almost every single word that my noble friend Lord Ashley said. If I express one or two reservations at the end of the speech, let me start by listing the number of issues on which I find myself at one not only with my noble friend but with all other noble Lords who have spoken. First, let it be clear that as many have said, including, with the most authority, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, murder is many different offences and not a single offence. Examples have been given of different kinds of murder which deserve different sentences. The example has been given of Dr. Nigel Cox. It was almost by accident that it could not be proved that the injection which he gave was the cause of death. That saved him from a mandatory life sentence. Such an example reinforces the point.
Secondly, let it be clear that if it comes to the choice between redefining murder and doing something about the sentence for murder, the answer must be to do something about the sentence rather than redefining murder. The arguments which have been put against the classification of murder as first degree or capital murder seem to me to be overwhelming. If there is to be a recognition of the different kinds of offences which murder is—and I believe that 60 per cent. of murders are committed by persons known to the victim—it should be the sentence which is changed.
498
Thirdly, let it be clear that the existing situation where the decision on that part of the life sentence which is spent in custody is made by civil servants making a recommendation to the Home Secretary is wholly unsatisfactory. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the alternative possibility of a tribunal including a judge, a psychiatrist and others much better qualified than civil servants or the Home Secretary to make the decision. It is clear that the enforcement which we have of the mandatory life sentence is quite unsuitable. Apart from anything else, although Ministers never openly admit it, it is still the case that those who continue to believe themselves to have been wrongly convicted of murder are not considered to have shown remorse and are not eligible for adequate consideration. They are discriminated against because they believe so firmly in their own innocence that they are prepared to put that belief above the hope of earlier release. As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said, some of the argument shows the logic which is in Alice in Wonderland.
Yet, I cannot believe that the noble Viscount will not agree in his response with the universal view of the House. I cannot believe that he will stand up and say anything other than that he is convinced by the arguments. If that is the case—and I think I know him well enough to believe that it is—I hope that he will consider the dangerous possibility that removing the mandatory life sentence may in some cases lead to longer sentences. I hope he will consider the possibility that there are judges who would wish to move towards longer sentences for certain kinds of murder.
Within the past month the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised a Starred Question in the House about a prisoner whom he called "convict Jeffs". Clearly, the impetus behind his Question was that somebody who had murdered a policeman should not be released as early as 20 years after being sentenced.
There are dark pressures in our society which would lead us towards longer sentences, particularly for the more offensive kinds of murder. I am not saying that we are moving towards the 99-year sentences which are common in the United States; but there are people who would wish life sentences really to be life. Those like my noble friend Lord Longford who know about such matters from first-hand knowledge and those who, like my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, know about conditions of lifers in Wakefield Prison know how utterly destructive of human personality that would be.
If (as I truly believe we shall), we not only pass the Bill but convince the Government that it is right that it should be passed, we must have protection against those darker forces in our society.
8.4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this Bill deals with a subject in which not only the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, but also your Lordships' House as a whole, have taken a particularly keen interest in recent years. The Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, under the chairmanship of the noble

499
Lord, Lord Nathan, put forward in its report some powerful arguments in favour of the abolition of the mandatory nature of the life sentence for murder.
I am very much aware of the strength of feeling which this serious issue arouses on both sides of the argument. The debate about the merits of the continued existence of the mandatory life sentence touches on some very difficult and highly complex matters to which there are no easy answers.
I know that both those who call for the mandatory life sentence to be abolished, and those who argue equally forcefully for its retention, hold deep-rooted views as to the powers which the courts should have to be able to deal with those who have committed the gravest of all crimes.
I respect those views. However, I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Government's position remains as it was when your Lordships last discussed this matter in November. The mandatory life sentence should remain.
The abolition of the mandatory life sentence would be a momentous step. I make no apology for saying that murder is a unique offence which for a very long time has attracted a mandatory penalty reflecting that difference. The fact that the penalty for murder is always life imprisonment ensures that someone whose deliberate action has resulted in the loss of another person's life will always—even if released from prison on licence—be liable to imprisonment for the rest of his or her life. That severe but, many would say, wholly justifiable and proper consequence, can only be achieved by a mandatory life sentence. We are not yet persuaded that it would be right to remove it.
The reason for abolishing the mandatory life sentence which is put forward most often and has been put forward by your Lordships this evening is that all murders are not of the same type. It includes many cases where the requirements of retribution do not demand a long period in custody. It is, some would say, wrong in principle—and indeed unfair—that the woman who, for example, has been subjected to intense mental and physical violence at the hands of her partner over a period of many years, or the person who feels unable to stand by any longer and watch his or her loved one suffer terrible pain and is actually begged by that person to help put an end to that suffering, should receive the same sentence as the cold, scheming serial killer or the terrorist whose callous acts—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not mean to interrupt the noble Viscount in mid-sentence. If that is the case, why has Mrs. Ahluwalia been released and above all why is Mrs. Thornton still in prison?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about specific cases on which I cannot comment. To return to what I was saying, it is wrong in principle that such a person should receive the same sentence as, for example, a terrorist whose callous acts are committed with no regard to the trail of death and destruction which they leave behind.
500
What this criticism overlooks, of course, is that, while the actual sentence imposed by the court—life imprisonment—is technically the same in every case, what it actually means in practice depends very much on the individual circumstances of the offence and the offender.
The arrangements for administering the mandatory life sentence are, in fact, highly flexible. They allow my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considerable discretion over the period which an individual murderer is detained in custody and they allow sufficient scope to ensure that the period is consistent with the particular circumstances of the case.
Unlike the criminal law, which properly looks only at intention in convicting a person of murder, the Home Secretary can take full account of every aspect of the case, including the motives for the killing, in setting the most appropriate period of detention for individual murderers.
No one is saying that the battered wife who killed her cruel husband when she could take no more should spend the same length of time in prison as the vicious killer of a policeman. Indeed, the Home Secretary is continuing the policy of his predecessors, as originally announced by Leon Brittan in 1983, of requiring that those who are responsible for the worst categories of murder—killers of police or prison officers, sexual or sadistic murderers of children, terrorist murderers and those who kill in the course of robbery—should serve at least 20 years in prison.
Twenty years is, of course, the minimum. Many will —and do—serve longer. Some may never be released. However, I should be very surprised indeed to find a case where a battered wife spent such a long time in prison.
The flexibility of the present arrangements for the release of mandatory lifers must not be dismissed. These arrangements have allowed, in the past, a person to be released as early as six months after conviction. At the other end of the scale, they have in one instance ensured that a convicted murderer remains in prison 40 years after conviction; his release back into the community is as yet still considered undesirable.
I realise that many will ask: if the life sentence means different things in different circumstances, why then should such a sentence remain the mandatory penalty for murder? Why not make it the maximum penalty, as it is for other very serious crimes such as manslaughter, rape and indeed attempted murder?
Although, as drafted, the noble Lord's Bill does not explicitly state what would replace the mandatory life sentence if the Bill were to pass into law, I assume that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is to make life imprisonment the maximum penalty for murder. This would mean that courts would still be able to impose such a sentence if they thought it appropriate, while having the discretion to pass shorter determinate sentences for those murders which, if it is not a contradiction in terms, might best be described as "less serious".
While I concede that such arrangements might appear attractive on the surface, we have to consider what effects any change would have on public

501
confidence in this area. I believe that the public would take the view which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he addressed your Lordships during the debate on the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in November. Many people would regard it as right that there should be a penalty which is unique to murder in order to reflect the particular abhorrence of society at that offence. We have to ask what sort of message we would be sending to the public if we had a situation where courts were imposing life sentences for certain murders but not for others.
The point about the mandatory life sentence has to be that it ensures that all those who deliberately take another person's life, whatever the circumstances, forfeit their right to complete liberty for the rest of their lives—irrespective of how long individual murderers actually spend in prison. This is the price which the majority of people expect murderers to pay for their crimes. A release from prison on licence for life enables a check to be kept on a convicted murderer in a way which a release on completion of a determinate sentence would never allow.
A life-sentence prisoner will never be entirely free again. He or she remains liable to recall to prison at any time if his or her conduct warrants it. This is the reassurance which, in the Government's view, the public expects in relation to all murderers, whether it applies to domestic homicide or to mass killers.
The mandatory nature of life imprisonment for murder arose from the abolition 30 years ago of the death penalty for murder. For some people at least, part of the argument against reintroducing the death penalty in subsequent years has rested on the acceptance of assurances from the Home Secretary that the worst murderers will spend a long time in custody. In giving that assurance, the Home Secretary is not, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, suggested, clinging on to power, but is properly discharging his responsibility, for which he is accountable to Parliament, for public confidence in our justice system.
People have taken the view that, if the ultimate penalty—death—is not available, then at least the most appropriate alternative will be applied by the courts, imprisonment, with any subsequent release being subject to very stringent tests and to conditions which will restrict that murderer's liberty for the rest of his or her life. If life imprisonment were no longer to be the mandatory penalty, the Home Secretary would be unable to give such assurances and I am sure that the confidence of the public would be undermined as a result.
I have set out the reasons why the Government remain committed to the retention of the mandatory life sentence for murder and, therefore, why we would be unable to support the aims of this Bill. The Government are not persuaded that it would be right to make this move, not least because we recognise that the implications of so doing (for example, for public confidence in the sentencing of murderers, for sentencing more generally and for the release arrangements for life-sentence prisoners) could be far-reaching.
502
With the abolition of the death penalty, the public have the right to know that the next most serious penalty, life imprisonment, will apply. In the interests of public safety and public confidence, that is the Government's view.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, as he said, asked me a question about life sentences and tariffs. He asked whether life sentence prisoners are told the period that the Home Secretary has initially determined to be the period appropriate for punishment. The answer is that no prisoner is formally notified of his tariff. Those with tariffs under 20 years can, however, work it out by adding three years to their review date. Where the tariff is more than 20 years, 17 years is considered the latest reasonable date to review the sentence.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if the noble Viscount means to leave it there, may I ask him whether he can justify not telling people who are serving long sentences beyond 20 years what their tariff is? But I have another question to put to him. I gave him notice of it this morning. How many people are there now in prison who have not been told their tariff? He had notice of that question.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, all mandatory life sentence prisoners have their tariff set by Ministers within the first year of sentence. A figure for the number of mandatory life sentence prisoners awaiting the setting of a tariff is not readily available. But, as I said, the tariff is set within the first year.
This is a Private Member's Bill—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount must answer my noble friend. What he asked was not when the tariffs were set; he asked how many life prisoners are in prison now who do not know their tariffs. It was a simple question and he was given notice of it.
Viscount Astor: Yes, and I gave an answer. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, misheard me. The figure for the number of mandatory lifers awaiting the sentence of a tariff is not available. But a tariff is set in that short period of time. All mandatory life sentence prisoners have their tariff set by Ministers within the first year of the sentence. I am sorry that the figures on that narrow period of time are not available.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, if it is possible to set the tariff in the first year of sentence, why can it not be done by the judge at the trial?
Viscount Astor: That is a different argument. Under Section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, a discretionary life sentence prisoner will have the relevant part of the sentence—the period related to the seriousness of the offence, after which the prisoner will be eligible for the release procedure—set by the trial judge in open court. That is the difference.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is of interest not only

503
to him but to many other people. Will the noble Viscount not say that he will find the information and let us have it?
Viscount Astor: The figure was not readily available today. I will certainly look to see whether it is possible to give that figure. I am not sure whether it is possible to give it, but I made inquiries today when I heard from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to see if it was available.
As I said, this is a Private Member's Bill, and the Government would not seek to influence what your Lordships decide to do with the Bill. But it is only correct that I should tell your Lordships of the Government's opinion. I recognise the strength of feeling expressed here this evening by noble Lords. I am sure that, as always, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will study very carefully what has been said.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I wonder whether he can confirm that heard him correctly. He said that, among other things taken into account is the Home Secretary's view of the motive of the person convicted of murder. If that is so, it is a remarkable admission. It is the trial judge and the Chief Justice who are asked by the Home Secretary about the proper period to be served for retribution and deterrence—which is a rather pompous way of saying for punishment. Motive is obviously of prime consideration for punishment. If the Home Secretary, having not heard the trial, is taking his view into account as to the degree of motive, he is interfering with the imposition of punishment, which is not the function of the Executive.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in response to the noble and learned Lord, I did say that the Home Secretary takes full account of all the circumstances of the case, including what is said by the trial judge and by the Lord Chief Justice. However, I said also that taking full account of every aspect includes the motive.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does that mean the Home Secretary's own view of the motive? That is my question.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is for the Home Secretary to make up his mind from the information he receives from all those sources. Obviously it is a decision that the Home Secretary takes having taken full account of all aspects of the case.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I want to do two things. First, I want to thank all those who have spoken in the debate, especially every Member, apart from the Minister, who has spoken in support of the Bill. We have heard some remarkable speeches and anyone who doubted the justice of the case must now be convinced.
Secondly, I want to point out that the Minister spoke as though he had never heard the speeches. However, I propose to avoid compounding his embarrassment. He has been compelled to read a
504
feeble brief given to him by the Home Office and we understand his problems. We do not want to confuse the messenger with the message coming from the Home Office and therefore I do not propose to comment on his speech other than to say this.
It would be greatly appreciated if the noble Viscount would have a quiet word with the Home Secretary and tell him what an embarrassing evening he has had at the hands of my noble friends Lord Longford and Lord McIntosh and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, among others. I have never seen a Minister so humiliated on any issue—not personally, but on an issue. Clearly the Home Office has no case. That is why I do not propose to compound the embarrassment of the noble Viscount by saying anything further. I thank him for his reply and ask the House to approve this Second Reading. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Electricity Prices for Major Users
8.23 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that electricity prices for major energy users such as ICI are internationally competitive.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of this country's finest companies are large and intensive users of energy. In my submission their efforts to improve the United Kingdom's exports and balance of trade are being severely damaged by unwarranted increases in the price of electricity since privatisation of that industry in 1991. The increases have arisen from an arbitrary reallocation of electricity supply costs under the new pool-based tariff system, compounded by inadequate competition between National Power and PowerGen. In my view it is essential for the viability of UK manufacturing industry that those failings should be corrected through fundamental changes in energy policy.
I am particularly concerned about the position in ICI, the company in which I worked for nearly 30 years. The price which ICI has to pay for electricity to produce chlorine, caustic soda and hydrogen—in other words chlor-alkali manufacture—at Runcorn has increased by almost 60 per cent. since April 1991 and is now totally out of line with the prices paid by international competitors. That has put at risk the entire UK manufacturing sector based on chlor-alkali production.
ICI is the second largest producer of chlor-alkali in Europe, and the fourth largest in the world. The UK manufacturing sector based on that production is estimated to make a positive contribution to the balance of trade of £1.5 billion annually. An extremely wide range of chemical intermediates and final products arises from that manufacture. Besides caustic soda, examples are bleaches essential to public health, industrial and dry-cleaning solvents, plasticisers and oil additives, paint pigment, agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals. Most of those intermediates and

505
final products are traded internationally, and if the sector is to be competitive internationally it must have competitively priced feedstocks. One of those is electricity, used for the electrolytic decomposition of brine into chlorine and caustic soda.
ICI uses approximately 1 per cent. of all electricity generated in England and Wales at its Runcorn site alone. That site uses more electricity than the whole of the city of Liverpool and is the single largest electricity consumer in the UK. The company has around 4,000 employees working in chlor-alkali and derivatives in the Runcorn area, and a further 3,000 employees supporting those operations on other UK sites. In addition, it is estimated that there are between 10,000 and 15,000 non-ICI employees working as contractors and in downstream businesses in the UK, all directly dependent on chlor-alkali manufacture. I no longer have a financial interest to declare in this matter, but your Lordships will understand how keenly I feel about the potential loss of so many jobs in the company in which I worked, largely in the area in which I still live.
As electricity prices have escalated, ICI has already found itself unable to bid for some tranches of traditional export business. Despite devaluation, at present pool prices up to 15 per cent. of the company's chlor-alkali production capacity cannot be used economically. ICI's view is that unless the price it pays for electricity is returned to an internationally competitive level, its manufacture of chlor-alkali and derivatives will progressively wither away, as major reinvestment will no longer be justified and areas of its business will fall to competitors.
That is no idle threat, for the process has already had to begin with the recently announced closure of 10 per cent. of capacity as declining export competitiveness has reduced demand. Withdrawal of domestic production of the chemical intermediates and bulk products that are supplied to downstream processors in the UK means that those processors will have to find other sources for their raw materials from overseas, and their finished products will thus become extremely vulnerable to direct competition. Uncompetitive electricity prices may thus lead progressively to the demise of the entire UK manufacturing sector based on chlor-alkali production.
The harsh, survival-oriented, cost-cutting measures within the business that ICI has already had to take in attempting to restore profitability are in marked contrast to the increases in half-year profits announced last November by National Power and PowerGen at a time of deepening recession. That evident imbalance between supplier and customer supports ICI's strongly held view that the complex set of regulations put in place with privatisation has not created a fair and competitive market in electricity.
I do not for a moment suggest that privatised utilities should be debarred from making profits; they are essential to finance future investment and to benefit shareholders. But here is a situation where in my view excessive profits are effectively endangering maybe 20,000 jobs and are being made at the expense of one of this country's greatest exporters and,
506
incidentally, an acknowledged leader in the fields of industrial relations, training and safety. The noble Lord the Leader of the House is reported to have become the Chairman of a Cabinet Committee set up to alleviate the scourge of unemployment. If ever there was a case where for both economic and social reasons jobs in manufacturing industry should be safeguarded, this is surely it.
I could go on, but I do not wish to weary your Lordships unduly with statistics. I am satisfied that, as a result of the price increases to which I have referred, ICI has in the past two years been placed at a severe disadvantage to its major chlor-alkali competitors in Western Europe and the USA, where electricity prices are currently between 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. less than those paid by ICI. I am also satisfied that the company's chlor-alkali cost base is internationally competitive in every respect save that of electricity costs. Substantial investment is needed now, but it simply cannot be justified at current electricity prices. Thus, while producers in other countries are reinvesting in their assets, ICI may be forced into further plant closures.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, well knows, ICI has been involved in lengthy discussions with the electricity generators, regional electricity companies, the electricity regulator and the DTI, but has so far been unable to obtain a realistic electricity price for its chlor-alkali business. I indicated earlier that in my view there is an urgent need to correct flaws in the present pool pricing system in the course of a fundamental review of UK energy policy. But ICI cannot afford to wait for the outcome of such a review. That is why, in evidence to the DTI coal review—for that is a forum which is highly relevant to this problem—the company has put forward an interim solution. Essentially it is that the system marginal price component of the pool selling price for single site consumers with a demand over a certain threshold should be discounted according to size of demand down to the marginal cost of efficient coal-fired generation.
I recognise of course that the Government are averse to intervening in the operation of the market. But what is looked for here is the creation of a true market, not some tampering with it through the provision of a subsidy. In the discussions to which I have referred, ICI has found that it is not within the power of the electricity generators to negotiate terms on the basis of an ordinary commercial relationship, but rather that the generators are bound by regulations which preclude them from engaging in a normal bargaining process. Yet if the end result is the collapse of UK chlor-alkali production, that will also be highly damaging for the electricity industry. It is only the Government which can now take effective remedial action.
In this case the Government still own 40 per cent. of PowerGen and National Power, and as the major shareholder they could reasonably exercise their influence to ensure that ICI and other large industrial users of energy are fairly treated. Moreover the European Commission would presumably see nothing wrong in such companies receiving what would

507
amount to bulk purchase discounts, for these are common features of business in this country and no doubt elsewhere in the Community.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester asked a Question on this subject last November. Unfortunately he cannot be here today, but he has asked me to say that he continues to be extremely concerned about the devastation which will result in his diocese if this matter is not dealt with rapidly. When the right reverend Prelate asked his Question the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, referred to a statement by ICI that there were environmental and other reasons for significant expenditure at sites such as Runcorn. That is undoubtedly so, but such expenditure pales into insignificance when compared with the savings that would accrue from a substantial annual reduction in the price of electricity, continuing over many years; and without those savings, that expenditure may not be undertaken at all. It is reasonable to think that in the light of recent profits from electricity generation, improvements in productivity and prospective reductions in the price of coal, a significant electricity price reduction for major users of energy should be readily affordable and that it need not be introduced at the expense of either smaller companies or the ordinary domestic consumer.
In asking this Question I am most anxious that nothing I have said and nothing that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, may say in reply should prejudice a satisfactory solution of the problem. I gladly acknowledge that the noble Baroness's department has been giving careful, and I do not doubt sympathetic, consideration to it. I have, however, thought it right that at this crucial moment before publication of the White Paper, which is to follow the DTI's coal review, I should raise the matter in your Lordships' House. Indeed in my view it is imperative that in that White Paper a solution should be put forward. I very much hope that the Government will now take action that will relieve my anxieties, and those of literally thousands of others on Merseyside and elsewhere whose livelihoods are at stake, and in that way demonstrate the value that they place on safeguarding the long-term international competitiveness of this country's manufacturing industry.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is traditional and of course courteous to congratulate a noble Lord who initiates a debate in your Lordships' House. I am afraid that I cannot do so this evening. What I can do, and do most sincerely, is to commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on the need to return to this subject almost three months after the Starred Question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on 18th November.
It now appears that in this time, in spite of many meetings, the inability or perhaps, although I hope not, the unwillingness of the various generating and pricing authorities involved to act on electricity prices for large-scale energy users means that between them they are in danger of damaging a great British
508
industrial process and losing some 4,000 jobs directly and another 3,000 to 9,000 in terms of the knock-on effects. The noble Lord will agree that estimates vary somewhat widely.
The noble Lord has outlined the problem with his usual skill, and there is no need to repeat it in detail. We must though go a little further into the major cost of electricity in the production of chlorine, which amounts to 70 per cent. of the variable costs and 50 per cent. of the whole. It is therefore readily understandable that a major hike, such as we have seen in electricity prices, to large-scale users—I emphasise "large-scale users" because elsewhere, as my noble friend Lady Denton has made clear on another occasion, prices have fallen—will reduce competitiveness with our foreign competitors and see a downturn in the industry here as a short-term result, leading to contraction and even death in the long term.
Many years ago—I suppose that it was not so long ago really—your Lordships' Select Committee on manufacturing industry, chaired by my noble friend Lord Aldington, made this very point with reference to ICI. I cannot cope with kilowatt hours when the use is so enormous. I prefer to use megawatts. When we learn that foreign electricity costs are between £23 and £25 per megawatt hour and our own are now £32, it is quite clear that we must see how we got into that situation and, more importantly, how we can get out of it. There are two reasons for the former.
First, pre-privatisation, large industrial users were subsidised at the expense of smaller ones. My noble friend must be right when she says, as she did on 19th November, that the QICS scheme is essentially incompatible with a competitive market. I would gently remind her that while the generation market is becoming competitive in this country, albeit over-dominated as yet by two large producers, the sales market is decidedly not.
For the second reason we must go back to the Electricity Act itself. It is not a non sequitur when I say that I am a large consumer of chocolate bars. If I buy them in a sweetshop they cost me 25p. If I go to the local cash-and-carry and buy by the outer they cost me about 21 p —the economies of scale and buying in bulk. If in my business I buy single boxes of padded bags for packing my goods, I pay a certain price for each bag. But if I buy 10 boxes of the same sized bag the cost per bag is reduced by means of a discount on the total bill.
Moving (perhaps more applicably) into the realm of heavy industry, my late father used to sell British diesel engines in South America. While his bosses in London allowed him to negotiate slightly on individual engines, when it came to multiple sales he was able to offer substantial discounts per unit.
The same applies to gas post-privatisation. Section 14(3) of the Gas Act states:
"In fixing tariffs … a public gas supplier shall not show undue preference to any person or class of person … but this subsection shall not apply in relation to tariffs fixed under that subsection with respect to the prices to be charged for therms supplied to any premises in excess of 25.000 therms in any period of 12 months".
Subsection (4) continues:

509
"a public gas supplier may enter into a special agreement with any consumer for the supply of gas to him on such terms as may be specified in the agreement if—(a) the tariffs in force are not appropriate owing to special circumstances; (b) the agreement provides for a minimum supply of gas to any premises in excess of 25,000 therms in any period of twelve months".
If we turn to the relevant section of the Electricity Act we see that the situation is totally different. Section 18(4) specifically states:
"In fixing tariffs … a public electricity supplier shall not show undue preference to any person or class of persons, and shall not exercise any undue discrimination against any person or class of persons".
The difference in treatment of large users has totally disappeared. I think my noble friend will want to give a straight answer to a straight question. Why is there a difference? I believe that that is the key question to emerge from today's debate, and I hope that we shall get the key answer.
An obvious remedy is to allow the generators or the regional electricity companies to make a different contract for base load (or what I call large but erratic load) customers. I am not alone in that view. In a recommendation of the recent report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place it said in paragraph 301 on page 118:
"We also recommend that urgent steps be taken to introduce demand-side bidding in the pool and to provide large scale users with unvarying demand to be able to bypass the pool and contract directly with generators".
That is the final recommendation in the report, although in paragraph 301 it also recommends that the nuclear levy should be tapered so that larger users pay a lower percentage. I cannot see that that will help the situation we are discussing today as the levy is temporary and it will be unfair not to make it a cost per unit. In addition, it is too small on its own to solve the problem of differential electricity costs. A more fundamental solution is required.
It has been suggested that there should be a dedicated power station. Indeed, I made that suggestion myself on 19th November. My noble friend rather misinterpreted my supplementary question when she replied that there was nothing to stop ICI or anyone else having their own power station. She is quite right. However, the lead time for a power station from the time of deciding that one is needed through the planning and consent period to actual production can be anything up to 15 years, though I understand that since I had the honour to serve in the then Department of Energy the period has been reduced to about eight years. Whole industries can be dead and buried in that time. What I meant was, would the Government allow ICI or whoever to buy an existing power station from a generator? Fiddler's Ferry has been mentioned in this connection because of its short transmission lines to ICI's plant, but I am sure there will be others appropriate to other firms in other parts of the country.
In my view, a very bad alternative would be—could a power station owned by an existing generating company have its output determined not by the pool but dedicated to a particular large-scale user? I say that it is very bad because it will necessitate a radical
510
reappraisal of the rules of the pool. That is bound to come sooner or later but I am afraid not in time to save the chlor-alkali industry.
There have been complaints that ICI, the Chemical Industries Association, the Energy Intensive Users Group and the Major Users Energy Council have been in a round of talks with the regional electricity companies, the DTI, the generators, the pool and OFFER. They have been told that none of them has a solution within the law. Thus, they have been passed from pillar to post and nothing concrete has emerged. We have reached the point where only the Government can step in and knock heads together. They should do it urgently. If it means changing the law either along the lines that the Select Committee and I have advocated or in some other way, so be it. It would be no crime or U-turn but merely a sensible adjustment to a very complicated Act that no thinking person expected the Government to get right at their first attempt. I remind the House, and my noble friend in particular, that it took about 120 years to get the rating system to the point where we left it for other systems of local government finance. It is unreasonable to expect a massive legislative sea-change to function properly overnight.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for putting down this debate for discussion this evening. The plant is very close to my home. The impact of the unemployment that will result from the possibility of ICI cutting back its chlorine plant will be a very heavy blow to that part of Cheshire, particularly the area between Chester and Warrington and the fringes of Manchester. We have already had a serious problem arising from the situation at Leyland DAF. Being chairman of NIMTECH—the North West Technology Centre—I am aware of the very definite plans by major companies throughout the North-West to get rid of staff over the next four or five years.
It is clear that very many of our manufacturing companies in the North-West will be faced with heavy redundancies within the next few years. The idea that we may see 10,000 or 11,000 people—that may well be the figure—become unemployed in Runcorn will represent a very serious disaster for the whole of Cheshire and the surrounding areas. In my view it is right to ask the Government to look very closely at the suggestion that ICI has put forward as a possible solution. I believe that ICI has been very sensible about the way it has tackled it. It is aware of government policy on electricity and have taken it into account. The proposals it has brought forward for Fiddler's Ferry seem to me to be a solution that merits careful attention by the Government. More importantly, it draws the attention of the whole of government more closely to the impact of high energy prices.
I have always believed that if we want to have an effective economy, one of the key factors is low energy cost for industry. That is a factor which is always noted by our competitors; it is a factor that is very obvious from those we are now competing with on

511
world markets. Unless government tackle that in a very positive way, our competitiveness at all levels of industry will be seriously affected. I believe that certain pressure groups within and outside government are of the view that we should increase energy prices to try to make an impact on environmental factors which are not necessarily proved to be right but which many people believe. We ought to make very clear that those who wish to see high energy prices as a method of solving an environmental issue will have a very serious impact on employment levels in this country. As we raise energy prices, the impact on employment and the success of our industries will be greater and greater as time goes on.
Another factor to which I draw the attention of government is because of the problems that are now arising in ICI and the problems that will arise in many of our traditionally high-employment heavy industries in the North-West, the pressures just described, and others in the United Kingdom, will make it more and more difficult for them to be competitive in a world where we have to be very aware about costs. Cheshire County Council were aware of this, and in the early 1980s it put together some important strategic plans for Cheshire. It realised that there was going to be a complete change in the way that people would have to be employed. It also realised that it would have to attract inward investment, and look for the right site potential to bring in that investment. It realised that there was going to be a movement in employment from the heavy industries that were slowly going to die and move away to the new types of industry that we would have to attract to bring in world-wide investment.
It put forward these proposals, and took care in the background work that was carried out. It was turned down by the Government. The Government in 1989–90 refused to accept Cheshire's proposals, which were going to lead to much greater employment opportunities in the county. They did it for environmental reasons; for planning reasons; or because, if you like, they were influenced by short-term single issue pressure groups that never thought for a moment of the impact they were going to have on employment and the development of industry.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale have said: it also draws attention to the need for the Government to make clear that the most important thing they can do on any issue that comes before them is to ensure that we stimulate our economic growth; that we create opportunities for employment; and that we make sure that businesses can grow and create wealth. Until the moment has been reached that we have some wealth in this country to do the things that we ought to be doing —until we have that priority—we shall continually come up against the problems of this company and that company running into difficulties.
Time is running out. I was recently appointed to one of the hospital trusts. I find it fascinating and a great challenge. But it worries me that we have to take the kind of financial decisions that should not be a
512
matter of concern in this country. We have the talent, the resources, the ability to create the wealth to do all the things that we want to do, but not if it is said that there is something that is more important than creating wealth. It is like having a business that says it is no longer important to make a profit; it is more important for somebody to have a Rolls-Royce; or for the scenery to be good, or to have something else. Very soon there is no profit. That is what is happening in this country to a degree that we have not appreciated because the problem is growing stage by stage.
The difficulties of ICI and of many of our other great and powerful companies in the North-West are going to get worse and worse until we face up to this problem and realise as a country and a Government that it is industrial development and the creation of wealth that should always be in the forefront of our minds.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, there are few Members of your Lordships' House who have more experience of the chemical industry than the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I have been a long-standing member of the all-party parliamentary chemical industries group, but I have never worked in the industry, as my comments will no doubt reveal. I intend to make a short speech, because I am not going to get involved in the technicalities of this argument as I am not qualified to do so. But it is worth remembering that in our export league the chemical industry has an important place. Unless we get this matter right our competitors in Europe and elsewhere are going to take advantage of all this.
It is also interesting that everything that we wear, see, eat, drink or touch has a chemical component in it, probably manufactured by ICI. I am not making a plug for ICI. I have no reason to do so. I have never worked for that group, but it is a company that over the years has served this country well. Therefore, the Government need to look carefully into this question. Unless we can get the energy question right here, unemployment will get worse. The Cheshire County Council and the leaders of all three political parties have endorsed this argument, and, after all, Cheshire is an area where unemployment is a real problem, particularly in neighbouring Merseyside. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take seriously what the noble Lord and those in the industry have said. They are not protectionist, but they are trying to keep going an industry that has served this country well.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down on the list of speakers, but it was due to circumstances that I could not control. My purpose in intervening is, first of all, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in his enthusiastic demands that the Government should intervene. Evidently that is what is needed. My qualification for speaking on this matter is that for 22 years I was chairman of the Runcorn Development Corporation. For two of those years I was a member of the Runcorn and Warrington Development Corporation. I must

513
have been considered fit to do it because it was a Tory Government that moved me from one to the other, and it was a Tory Government that appointed me to the Runcorn Development Corporation.
About 10 years ago the present President of the Board of Trade paid me the compliment of coming along to Runcorn when he was being designated by some people as Mr. Liverpool; the Minister for Merseyside. He came to see me because he was worried about the closeness of Runcorn to Liverpool, and I suppose he took into consideration that I had been the first chairman of Merseyside County Council, which subsequently was abolished. It was a great pity. There was nothing we could do about that.
He came to see me because he realised that the closeness of Runcorn meant that whatever happened at Runcorn subsequently affected Liverpool, and that whatever happened in Liverpool subsequently affected Runcorn and of course Cheshire, which had made tremendous strides in proposing developments that could help us with our problems. However, all in all, it boils down to what the Government will do.
The Minister came to Runcorn at a time when Runcorn was doing very well, thank you very much, from ICI. Of course ICI was one of the main reasons why Runcorn was designated. We had the opportunity to build a new town, to bring people in, and we already had a basic settled population that was mainly a population of working people in Runcorn. That was a tremendous asset. We nurtured it and did all that we possibly could to help Runcorn in the context of the new town. I must say that ICI did a tremendous job towards the creation and development of the new town. It was a good partnership.
However, in my experience of Runcorn, I met many people, although I did not have the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I detected from my information about ICI at Runcorn that we must not go on supposing that ICI had a permanent life on Merseyside. It started of course because of the salt beds at Winsford. Everybody seemed to grasp the idea that the basic raw material was there and to feel that therefore ICI had a long life there. But I was beginning to hear rumours about brine pipes going to the North East.
Indeed, 20 years ago we were talking about the possibility of ICI being damaged by electricity charges—and that was when we had some control over the electricity industry. I happened to be a member of Manweb at the same time, so I had some knowledge of what could be done with regard to adjustments in that area. More importantly, however, we had the idea that, if ICI was threatened by high energy prices, something could be done to ameliorate the situation. But now we have given up any worthwhile control over the electricity industry, as is evidenced by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, suggested that we needed a change in the Act of Parliament. That is not a bad thing—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I did not go as far as the noble Lord has just gone, which is to suggest that we have lost control. We have plenty of control
514
through Acts of Parliament, the regulating bodies and so on. What we must do is to use that control. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with that.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, of course. It all boils down to the same thing—that if we need to change an Act of Parliament or to create a new Act in order to assist the electricity industry so that it can assist ICI, it means, in effect, that we do not have that control at the moment. We would have to go to Parliament to get it. I am simply pointing out that, while there was a relationship between the Government and the electricity industry which would allow them to help ICI, it gave the company some hope. But now all that has gone—and ICI knows what the situation is.
As I was saying, I had long heard rumours about brine pipes to the North East. Recently I have heard rumours about getting rid of the salt deposits near ICI at Northwich. That worries me. I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, in saying that we should be demanding some intervention. As I have said, the present President of the Board of Trade came to see me at Runcorn. I pointed out to him that the problem in Liverpool—associated with Runcorn —was that Liverpool had lost its reason for existence. It was no longer a junction between another mainland mass and Europe. Therefore, something big had to be done to give it a new reason for existence. I said, "If you don't do something, then in a very short time the population of Liverpool will start to go down because it will drift to somewhere else". I shall not quantify it. However, over those 10 years, the population of Liverpool has decreased by 350,000 from 850,000 to about 500,000 now. That seems to indicate that I was right in my prediction.
We then started to talk about the periphery of Merseyside—and it then became obvious why Mr. Heseltine had come to Runcorn. He wanted to see what its development prospects were. I said, "Only one thing is absolutely certain. You must not rely on the permanent presence of ICI at Runcorn". Although that was pooh-poohed, there now seems to be a danger.
I conclude on this note. It would be a tragedy of immense proportions if, governments of all natures having decided to build a new town at Runcorn, the same decimation that has afflicted Liverpool then overtook that new town. But that will happen. Since that meeting with Mr. Heseltine, I have read extracts from his book and heard speeches. I do not want the Minister to answer any of this in detail because I should like the Government to keep an open mind and to look seriously at the problems affecting ICI. However, I should like to ask this: in view of the statement by the President of the Board of Trade about intervening in the morning, the afternoon and the evening and in view of the statements in his book about how we should intervene to save industry, do the Government intend to intervene at all over the question of ICI and high energy prices?
9.4 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rochester has been right to raise this issue at the present time. It seems to go beyond the case of ICI at Runcorn. First, it affects all intensive energy users. Secondly, it raises questions of energy policy, industrial activity, unemployment and overseas earnings. All these issues come together in the particular case which has been raised tonight. I should like to comment briefly on each in turn.
Energy policy is being carefully reviewed by the Government at the moment. We shall soon no doubt be seeing the results of their considerations in the long-awaited White Paper. As has already been pointed out, the Select Committee's report referred to the situation of the intensive energy users. There does not seem to be any doubt that, under the present arrangements for electricity sales and under the legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred, some long-term changes will be required. We have had so many changes in this country of a structural nature in industry and are left with so little of our industrial activity based on the heavier end that special care needs to be taken to preserve what is left.
It is noticeable that when the Commission proposed the carbon energy tax, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, referred, it gave special exemption to the intensive energy users because it knew that any increase in their charges could be very serious indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the substantial difference in prices paid by similar users on the Continent. He mentioned that according to the information it provided, ICI at Runcorn is paying £32 per megawatt hour compared with continental prices of between £20 and £25. So it is essential that in any re-arrangement that gap should be closed.
There are two ways how that should be done. First, there should be a fundamental review of how electricity pricing is arrived at. That must take account of intensive energy users, which it does not at the moment; but, as is well recognised, that could take time to work out, and so an interim solution seems highly desirable. The interim solution put forward by ICI, and taken up in the Select Committee's report, is one that is capable of being applied, if the Government are so minded.
To wait until a full scale review of the operations of the pool and electricity prices is carried out could take some time, could require legislation; and, as was rightly pointed out by my noble friend, ICI does not have that time at its disposal if it wishes to maintain its position in the marketplace. So there needs to be a great deal of rethinking in the energy sector. When we come to industrial policy, we must also give a thought to the fact that we must retain not just a balanced activity in the industry; but, if anything, we must widen and extend our industrial base.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, which, over seven years ago now, made that point. So, it would be wrong if, instead of trying to enlarge our
516
industrial base to ensure that it has the necessary variety between different forms of activity, certain deficiencies in the electricity pricing system were to diminish that base still further. In this case, the intensive energy users are all large scale employers. Not just the chemical industry, but the steel industry and the cement industry would be affected. They are intensive employers as well as being intensive energy users. So the impact of the present electricity pricing system on major sectors of industrial activity could be serious.
The impact could be dramatic on our overseas trade. As my noble friend pointed out, with the one case of ICI at Runcorn, the adverse impact on our balance of payments could be as much as £1.5 billion —half of that deriving from direct overseas trade and the other half from the supply of products in the home market which, if they were not supplied by ICI, would have to be imported. That is not a condition which we can regard with equanimity. Our balance of payments is already sufficiently in deficit for us not to run the risk of widening the gap still further. ICI, and the other chemical companies which come into that category, the cement industry and steel, continue to make substantial contributions to our balance of payments. Their competitive position must be safeguarded.
The short-term solution that has been proposed is feasible. It would not have an adverse impact on any other users, pending the time when a full scale review of the operation of electricity prices can be undertaken, so that proper regard can be given to those who consume large quantities of energy. I trust that when the Minister replies, she will be able to confirm what she has already said; namely, that the Government are taking this matter extremely seriously, and that we may look for some indication as to how they propose to deal with this in the forthcoming White Paper.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to your Lordships for the fact that my name appears in disguise on the list of speakers. I gather that that is a result of sheer incompetence by at least one of my noble friends; but as your Lordships are aware, my noble friend Lord Donoughue and I speak with one voice.
I shall start with at least one disclaimer: I do not intend to speak about the energy review. We shall have a chance to do that on another occasion. I hope that when we eventually have the coal industry review and all that goes with it, it will be based on a long-term energy strategy and not on some short-term expedient. I agree with those noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, who said that what industry requires generally is low-cost energy, low-cost electricity. That is right. We have the paradox that the best way to deal with environmental pollution caused by carbon usage and all that is to make the polluter pay. It is difficult to strike the right balance there, but I am bound to say that as a matter of economics it is puzzling to me that one would simultaneously say that one would tax the wrong use

517
of energy but then excuse intensive energy users from that tax. The whole point would be to place the tax as strongly as possible on the energy-intensive users. Again, the paradox must be sorted out in terms of relating the environmental question on the one hand to the efficiency question on the other hand.
I assume that we are not discussing ICI. I have no intention of going into the detail of that company. I do not accept what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to say—that a special case should be made for ICI.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what I said. I mentioned the fact that there is a whole category of intensive users. I mentioned the steel industry, the cement industry and the rest of the chemical industry.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am grateful. I believe that whatever solution we find must apply to all those users. In other words, it cannot possibly be to find a device which makes electricity cheaper for ICI. We are, therefore, in agreement on that matter.
Two principles are involved. First, we want low-cost electricity. In particular, we are concerned about the economic future of energy-intensive manufacturing industry because it is in a tough, internationally competitive environment. We are also restricted by the Electricity Act. I took part fully in the debates in this House on the privatisation. I understood that via the so-called X minus Y rule the price of electricity was supposed to fall in real terms. The whole point of regulating the industry was to achieve a real fall in the price of electricity. That was supposed to reflect rising productivity and it was supposed to be an incentive to efficient power generation. We again have before us the great puzzle that while the real price of electricity is supposed to fall, allegedly the real price of electricity to the ICI plant has risen by 60 per cent. We must ask how that has come about.
I agree with most of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. However, the notion that what has happened is a surprise is not correct; it is certainly not a surprise to me. If the noble Lord cares to look at some of the speeches which I made during the passage of the privatisation Bill he will see that I argued that privatisation would lead to mistakes in pricing. I argued that the merit order pricing system which we had under the nationalised industry produced an optimal price structure for the British economy. I also argued that post-privatisation we should no longer have that structure. Therefore, I am not in the least surprised that there are anomalies.
However, I am genuinely surprised that the price to a particular client has risen in real terms by 60 per cent. I should not have predicted anything as anomalous as that and I should like the Minister to give an explanation. It makes no sense to me at all. In particular, it makes no sense that an intensive user, a big customer, is experiencing the biggest increase in price. That puzzles me. I expected the opposite to happen, especially when the tariff was supposed to reflect or to simulate what would happen in an effectively competitive environment. When the
518
industry was privatised we were promised that its cross-regulation would lead to a tariff structure which corresponded to competitive conditions. I find it amazing that that has led to the price rise that has been described tonight.
I differ slightly with other noble Lords, therefore. I see nothing inevitable about the price rise to ICI. I see it simply as action which the privatised industry is taking in order to make a great deal of money from its monopoly position. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, because I too have no objection to industries making profits as long as they make them in a competitive environment. However, I have very strong objections to industries making profits using monopoly power.
I now turn to the regulator. The performance of the regulator is less than impressive. I put it at its mildest because it is late in the evening. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to a review of pricing policy and pricing structure. I have asked myself why we need such a review. I had thought that the whole point of having a regulator was to regulate in order to achieve an efficient pricing structure, in particular, a pricing structure which both stimulated competition and produced prices which allowed our manufacturing industry to be competitive and to survive. I believe that in part what has happened is as a result of regulatory failure rather than anything else and is not inevitable. Although I am intrigued and shall reflect further on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about the possible need for a change in the law, I am not convinced of that. But I am convinced that we need a regulator who will do his job properly. I turn now to the noble Baroness's department. I read the words of her honourable friend in another place on this subject. In the very strict sense of the word, I thought that her honourable friend's response was pathetic. I do not say that in a pejorative sense. There was a genuine sense of pathos in that I felt that he wanted to do something but was wringing his hands and had no idea what to do. He claimed that the department had no powers. He claimed also that, if it did have powers, they could not be exercised because of EC competition considerations. Speaking as someone who is strongly pro-European and pro the Community, I hate it when we are told that we cannot do what is right for our industry because of Community considerations. I should like to believe that the Community does not prevent us from doing what is right for our industry.
I bear in mind that the Government own 40 per cent. of both the power generating firms. If I owned 40 per cent. of a firm, I believe I could get it to move slightly in my direction as regards policy. In fact, I believe that I could do that with much less than 40 per cent. Therefore, I believe that the department could do more than wring its hands.
My final conclusion is the same as that of other noble Lords. We know the outcome that we want—a viable industry generally and specifically we want the energy intensive plants to prosper. One can anticipate, because we have been down this road before, all the reasons why we cannot do anything. I hope that I too am not being pathetic, again in the strict sense of the

519
word, when I say to the noble Baroness that I would like her to tell me something that she is going to do rather than what she is not going to do.
9.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for raising this interesting matter this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it covers many areas which are of enormous importance to the future of this country's economy.
The North-West has some very worthy champions from whom we have heard this evening. That must include the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who is not able to be with us on this occasion.
I may speak more softly but I could not agree more with my noble friend Lord Wade that wealth creation is a key issue. There can be no achievement of our other aims unless we are able to create wealth. I confirm that the Department of Trade and Industry believes that wealth is based on manufacturing. I do not underestimate the contributions of service industries but we are committed to the manufacturing industries of this country. No one in my department would underestimate the contribution which ICI has made to the economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, has longer experience than I of working with the President of the Board of Trade. However, intervention is "on behalf of" and not "in". "On behalf of" has already benefited the North-West when the Government fought to retain the European fighter project and the recent visit of the Prime Minister brought back orders for British Aerospace. The North-West well understands intervention "on behalf of".
I thank noble Lords who recognise the extent to which my answer must be constrained by ensuring that I do not pre-empt the coal review. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who I am delighted to see sitting in that place this evening—though I suspect not as delighted as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue— that I am not wringing my hands, but it would be wrong of me to touch on issues which are matters for the coal review.
I can state that the Government's energy policy is designed to secure energy supplies at the lowest possible prices. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that environmental issues are a key anxiety. However, I recall my maiden speech, in which I suggested that having green banks and blue sky is rather irrelevant if everybody is out of work. That is a tightrope which we must all walk.
The Government's energy policy is designed to secure, among other aims, energy supplies at the lowest possible prices, diversity of supply, and to meet the customer's needs with maximum efficiency. The Government believe that these aims can best be achieved by opening up the electricity market to competition wherever possible, by exposing the
520
electricity utilities to private sector disciplines and by ensuring that customers' interests are looked after by an independent regulator.
When we privatised the electricity industry, therefore, we created from the outset competition in the generation of electricity, and introduced competition into the supply of electricity. Competition in both of these areas will continue to increase as, for example, more independent generators come on to the system. We also appointed the Director General of Electricity Supply, who is responsible for promoting competition and ensuring that the competitive market operates properly and is refined where necessary.
We believe that on the whole this policy has been successful. All customers whose maximum demand is more than one Megawatt can now shop around in a competitive market for their supplies at the keenest possible prices. The introduction of competition has brought significant benefits to most of these customers. I am delighted to assure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the average electricity price paid by industrial customers overall has fallen significantly—by 6 per cent. in real terms—over the three years since privatisation. Medium and moderately large industrial customers have seen even bigger real reductions in their electricity bills. That is an important point.
Contrary to the impression given earlier in this debate, average electricity prices paid by large and medium users in the United Kingdom remain around the middle of the range of EC prices, lower than those in Germany and Spain, comparable with those in Italy and higher than those in France, for example. We appreciate, however, that some very large industrial companies which are intensive users of electricity have experienced significant price increases, against this general trend. The price of electricity is, of course, particularly important to these companies. We recognise that.
Prior to the privatisation of electricity these companies received favourable terms for their electricity under the QUICS scheme, which passed on the savings from cheap coal to some, but not all, very large customers. We believed that this sort of cross-subsidy scheme, which provided favourable terms for electricity to some companies but not others, was incompatible with the competitive market. This remains our position.
I would remind your Lordships that one company's subsidy is without doubt another company's cost. The balance is not an easy one to strike. I should point out, however, that large customers such as ICI pay significantly less than, say, domestic customers because it is more expensive to supply domestic customers. The Electricity Act ensures that discrimination will not take place. However, large users are supplied more cheaply because it costs less to supply them. That is, I think, fair logic. The loss of these favourable terms is the main reason for the price increases which some very large customers have experienced. Restoring these favourable terms would mean that other classes of customer, including other industrial customers and domestic customers, would have to pay more for their electricity.

521
We could have a lengthy debate—but this is not the time of night to do so—about the size of the increase in prices that some large users of electricity, such as ICI, have experienced. I do not wish to go down that route today, although I hope noble Lords will recognise that I do not necessarily accept as fact every figure that has been mentioned in this debate. Without at all diminishing their importance I must point out that the increases to the large customers must be put into context. A price increase of 60 per cent. for ICI Runcorn has been mentioned. That is a somewhat selective choice of example and it is somewhat misleading. It is taken from a point in March 1991 when ICI's prices were particularly low and takes no account of inflation. Figures produced by ICI itself show that electricity prices at the Runcorn plant increased by some 8 per cent. in total in real terms over the last four years. That is closer to the scale of real increase which large users have seen.
Nevertheless, we fully appreciate the difficulties that some very large customers face. The situation is compounded because, notwithstanding the average figures, we understand that some large users of electricity elsewhere in Europe may receive electricity on more favourable terms which cannot be justified by lower costs of supply.
I know that anxiety has been expressed about a number of more general issues relating to the operation of the market which are of particular concern to large users. For example, I am aware of the criticism of the rises that took place in prices in the electricity pool between May and August of last year. I recognise the importance of pool prices to the companies that we are discussing. I stress that we are talking about companies and not one particular company. However, the director general, who is responsible for ensuring the satisfactory operation of the competitive market, has investigated the matter. He is entirely independent, and his report concluded that the pool price had previously been held at an unsustainable level, below generators' costs. The coal review will take account of the director general's findings.
I am also aware of the criticism from large users that the level of competition in generation is inadequate. The director general has accepted the earlier recommendation of the Energy Select Committee that we should consider whether a reference of the generators to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was necessary by 1995.
We believe that the best way to resolve this matter is to ensure that the operation of the UK market takes full account of the specific characteristics of large users. The director general has made significant progress in improving the workings of the market. His pool price investigations identified unjustifiable bidding practices by the generators, which have been corrected. I am sure that that work will continue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, the DTI has been in dialogue with OFFER and large users, including ICI, for some months about whether the market is working properly. That dialogue continues, and I assure your Lordships that the electricity prices paid by large users are one of the issues that are being
522
considered in the coal review. Obviously I cannot anticipate the conclusions of that review, but, I can assure the House that we have the concerns of large customers very much in mind and that we have noted the recommendations that were made by the Trade and Industry Select Committee last month.
We continue to work to bring down artificial constraints and barriers to competition across Europe so that companies abroad cannot receive favourable terms which cannot be justified by lower costs of supply. The Government strongly support the European Commission's proposals for the liberalisation of the EC electricity and gas markets. It is also open to companies who know of competitors elsewhere in the EC who are receiving unjustifiably favourable terms to refer that to the Commission for investigation.
As your Lordships know, it is my policy to try to answer specific questions which are raised in debate. There is no reason why a large user should not strike a commercial deal with a generator to buy existing stations. The director general is responsible for ensuring that the competitive market works properly. If generators refuse to deal with ICI or any other large company on a commercial basis, then that matter should be taken to the director general.
On electricity and prices in Europe, sometimes areas have the benefit of greater natural resources such as hydropower. I do not believe that a resulting subsidy race, if we were to enter it, would be any better than the suggestion—firmly rejected in this House that we should match tariff for tariff in lighting GATT protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, stated, and others agreed, that electricity industry profits are a good thing if they come from improved efficiency. I know that, for instance, in the North West, Manweb has invested about £210 million in customer service improvements. That is important for the industry. However, the director-general will be able to consider company profits when he resets the price formula. He has said that he well understands customers' worries about the level of company profits.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised the question of the precise difference between the gas and electricity Acts. I try to give straight answers. I shall therefore write to my noble friend.
In summary, therefore, the Government believe that most industrial customers have seen significant price reductions since privatisation. We fully appreciate that some very large customers have seen significant price increases against the general trend, and we are working with them to see how the electricity market can be improved.
We are looking at a number of proposals to help these large users as part of the coal review. We have taken on board all suggestions, including ICI's own evidence to the DTI Trade and Industry Committee. The Government intend to publish a White Paper setting out the conclusions of the coal review as soon as we can in February. I am sure that your Lordships will draw this issue to my attention during the debate on the outcome of the review.

523
Perhaps I may once again express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for airing the issue today. I hope that I have been able to give a little comfort in this area.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before ten o'clock.

  WAR CRIMES ACT 1991
  WAR CRIMES ACT 1991
  PRISON SERVICE OFFICERS
  PRISON SERVICE OFFICERS
  HOME OFFICE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS: FEE
  HOME OFFICE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS: FEE
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS: TRANSFER VALUES
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS: TRANSFER VALUES
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS: TRANSFER TO PERSONAL PROVISION
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS: TRANSFER TO PERSONAL PROVISION
  PERSONAL PENSIONS: CONTROL OF COSTS
  PERSONAL PENSIONS: CONTROL OF COSTS
  WATER CHARGES: ASSISTANCE WITH PAYMENT
  WATER CHARGES: ASSISTANCE WITH PAYMENT
  BANKS: COMPLAINTS FROM SMALL BUSINESSES
  BANKS: COMPLAINTS FROM SMALL BUSINESSES
  WATER METERS: ACCURACY
  WATER METERS: ACCURACY
  GAS (EXEMPT SUPPLIES) ACT 1993
  GAS (EXEMPT SUPPLIES) ACT 1993
  ALDERMASTON: SAFETY
  ALDERMASTON: SAFETY
  US EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
  US EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
  ANIMAL KIDNEYS: DISEASE
  ANIMAL KIDNEYS: DISEASE
  GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS: ELECTION OF GOVERNORS
  GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS: ELECTION OF GOVERNORS