Sitting of 22 February 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Mrs. Sybil Judith Chaplin, OBE, Member for Newbury, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Drug Abuse (Sport)
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the problem of drug abuse in sport.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I expect to have a number of meetings this year with the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss issues of mutual concern, including the abuse of drugs in sport.
    Mr. Campbell: What does it take to shake the Government out of their complacency about the problem of drug abuse by sportsmen? It is increasingly clear that, although evidence in the past suggested that anabolic steroids, for example, were being used by track and field athletes, the use of such potentially life-threatening drugs is more widespread throughout a variety of sports. Is not it time that the Government did something much more concrete and definite to discourage sportsmen from abusing themselves in this way?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not accept for a moment the opening sentence of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been asked to consider the possibility of bringing steroids under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Home Secretary will consider its advice before reaching a decision.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has some of the best drug detection techniques in the world? Do not other sports bodies in the world frequently come here for advice?
    Mr. Brooke: I totally accept my hon. Friend's comment. Our reputation is widely praised and my hon. Friend is right about other countries seeking our advice.
    Mr. Pendry: Does the Secretary of State recognise, none the less, that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Sports Council, the British Olympic
    664
    Association and others urge the need to regulate the use of anabolic steroids in particular not only in sport but in gymnasiums up and down the country? I recognise that the Government have a problem in finding a legislative peg on which to hang such controls, but will he join Opposition Members in urging that we have a full debate in order that this serious problem, which affects sport and society generally, is ironed out in the House, which may assist the Government in paving the way for such legislation as asked for by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining the Opposition in concern about the issue. The problem was considered in our debate on sport shortly before Christmas. An Adjournment debate would offer us the opportunity to consider the full facts.

    Government Art Collection
    Ms. Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future plans for the Government art collection.
    Mr. Brooke: I have no plans to change the status of the Government art collection. It is the Government's policy regularly to review their activities to see whether the management of those activities should be provided by the state, and, if so, how they should be managed. The Government art collection is not excluded from this policy.
    Ms. Abbott: The Secretary of State may not have such plans, but he will be aware that it has been extensively reported in the press that the Treasury is trying to force a change on him. Does he agree that the fact that this ridiculous idea is even floated by the Treasury shows the bankruptcy of the Government's economic policies, which reduce them to such stratagems as selling off paintings and raiding British Rail's pension fund at a time when it is not clear whether they would raise the maximum amount of money? Will he assure the House that if the Treasury were formally to approach him with this absurd suggestion he would resist it strongly? Does he accept that this reflects the attitude of a Government who know the price of everything but the value of nothing?
    Mr. Brooke: In a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies on 23 November, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it was sensible to review Government activities to decide whether they should continue to be provided by the state, and I repeated that in my answer to the hon. Lady a moment ago. The hon. Lady has worked up tremendous indignation about a hypothesis, but I hope that she will next turn her attention to the hard fact that the City of Manchester education committee is selling more than 100 works of art at Sotheby's next month—the decision has already been taken that the sale is to take place.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend admit that the Government art collection is not up to much anyway and that it would not be a very great loss if it were flogged?
    Mr. Brooke: I would not agree with my hon. Friend. The Government art collection is approaching its centenary. It represents more than 15,000 works of art

    665
    which have been chosen over the past century. They are a significant representation of the history of British art in our time.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects funds to be available for distribution from the national lottery.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): We hope that the licence to run the national lottery will be awarded later this year, and the national lottery will be operational towards the end of 1994. Funds will be available for distribution shortly after the lottery starts up.
    Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the main objective of the national lottery, which is to improve the quality of life, will not be diluted?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the importance of not diluting the main objective of the lottery. It is true that we seek to have the best national lottery in the world, but, of course, it is also true that concerns have been expressed by small and charitable lotteries, the charities themselves, the pools industry and others. All the concerned bodies are being listened to with great care in Committee, but we are dealing with the problem by ensuring that 20 per cent. of proceeds go to charities and by the enhancement of small lotteries. It will, indeed, be a very British lottery.
    Mrs. Clwyd: When the National Lottery etc. Bill was first published, the Minister pledged that the revenue raised from the lottery would be truly additional and would not be a substitute for Government funding. Does the Minister agree that when hundreds of local arts and sports organisations are being savagely cut because of the revenue support grant, the lottery pledge of additionality rings very hollow and, along with many other Government promises, should be taken with a large pinch of salt?
    Mr. Key: I do not think that the hon. Lady understands local government finance. Most of the local government equation—priorities within it must be for local authorities —is based on the principle of revenue funding. The whole point of the national lottery is that the vast proportion will be concerned with capital funding.
    Mr. Tracey: Could my hon. Friend go a little further and say when he envisages the appointment of the director general of the Office of the National Lottery which will be an important part of the operation? Is he aware that a great deal of expertise is already available in the operation of lotteries, and it is estimated that the national lottery could be up and running successfully by the spring of next year?
    Mr. Key: Nothing would please me more. I hope that we shall be able to proceed to the appointment of the director general of Oflot as soon as Royal Assent has been granted. In order to achieve that, we must make speedy progress in Committee.

    UNESCO
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from UNESCO on the work of his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: The United Kingdom's withdrawal from UNESCO in 1985 has not significantly affected the work of my Department. The question of rejoining UNESCO is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who continues to follow closely developments in that organisation, but has not so far taken any decision on resumption of membership.
    Mr. Dowd: The Secretary of State will be aware that the overwhelming majority of informed opinion in the arts and sciences and cultural circles believe that the simple submission to the former President of the United States in pulling out of UNESCO has done immeasurable damage to this country and to the organisation. Will he prevail on the Foreign Office to reconsider the issue before, by force majeure, the new Administration in the United States makes it compulsory for us to rejoin, and to do so at the earliest opportunity, thus avoiding the embarrassment which would follow such a train of events, and repairing some of the damage done to this country and its influence overseas by the earlier decision?
    Mr. Key: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was in 1985. At that time, I was the last British national commissioner for UNESCO. I was, therefore, very familiar with the arguments then. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there was not total and unswerving support for the objectives of the UNESCO administration. However, UNESCO has many important functions to which we still subscribe and in which we are actively involved—even this very week.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not come to a decision. Whether he comes to a decision before or after the United States has done so is entirely up to him. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the whole question of membership of UNESCO is kept under consideration.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that the new President of the United States has spoken most warmly to Dr. Mayor, the director-general of UNESCO? Any benefit that may have been experienced by that universal organisation as a result of our withdrawal because of its bad administration will be dissipated by our remaining out of it. There is a great deal to be said in terms of this country's interests for our rejoining that universal organisation and for ensuring that our cultural achievements are shared and are carried through in its work abroad.
    Mr. Key: I am aware of that point and I am also aware that many British nationals provide expertise for UNESCO, either because they are directly employed by that organisation or because they are employed on a consultancy basis. I have no doubt that some parts of UNESCO's work are valuable to this country, whereas other parts may be more beneficial to other countries than to Britain.

    Press Complaints Commission
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has held with the Press Complaints Commission on the recent changes made by the commission in its code of conduct.
    Mr. Brooke: None.
    Mr. Soley: Can the Secretary of State tell us what the Government's policy is? The Government have said that they do not like self-regulation because it is not working, but the Secretary of State has apparently had no talks with the commission to see whether self-regulation can be beefed up. In the past few weeks, we have seen headlines such as "You bitch" in the "Home Alone" case. Sir Allan Green's late wife was approached by the prostitute in the case and the photograph was paid for—if not directly by the press-indirectly either to the prostitute or to the pimp. We have not heard a dicky-bird from the Press Complaints Commission. What makes the Secretary of State think that self-regulation will work if he has not talked to the commission? All the evidence shows a continuing decline in press standards.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman knows especially well that the Government have said that their final response to the recent Calcutt report will come after they have had the opportunity to listen to the debates in Committee on the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill and after we have had the opportunity to hear the views of the Select Committee on National Heritage.
    The Press Complaints Commission has not asked to see me. A meeting could, of course, take place if I asked to see it. I believe that self-regulation works when the inspiration for it comes from within the body that is doing the self-regulating rather than from outside it.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: For those of us who believe in self-regulation the tragedy is that the press has always done too little too late. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the newspaper industry should not rest complacently on the latest changes to the code of conduct, welcome though they are? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the newspaper industry should reconsider carefully the code of conduct proposed in the first Calcutt report? It offers a tighter model of self-regulation than that offered by the relatively easy-going code that the newspaper industry has put together for itself.
    Mr. Brooke: I am aware that my hon. Friend will contribute to the Select Committee report, to which we look forward. On the developments that have occurred since the second Calcutt report was published, I have welcomed the evidence that the press is interested in reform of its own procedures. There is still plenty of time before we have to come to a conclusion—after the Select Committee has reported—when we can see whether there are further developments.

    Cross-media Ownership
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the question of cross-media ownership.
    Mr. Brooke: This and other ownership issues are raised at meetings with broadcasters and in letters from hon. Members and the public. However, there is no agreement about what, if anything, needs to be changed.
    Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister would agree that free and well-dispersed media in this country are essential if we are to maintain freedom of speech. Can he therefore explain why the ownership of the electronic media—radio and television—is subject to control while no restraints are imposed on the accumulation of newspapers by certain owners? Can he tell me how much of both media is now owned by Rupert Murdoch?
    Mr. Brooke: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government should pay attention to the matters he raises. He will be aware of the remarks of Sir David Calcutt regarding the regulation of the electronic media. The matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised were widely debated when the House considered the Broadcasting Act 1990. He will also be aware that the President of the Board of Trade has certain powers in relation to the ownership of newspapers. For the time being, we shall leave matters as they are and allow the Broadcasting Act to settle down.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend accept that cross-media ownership of newspapers and the electronic media occurs in France and Italy? Does he accept that if Britain and the English-speaking world are to compete adequately with those conglomerates, we must have strength in our own media?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has done the House a service by referring to the international dimension of the issue. I repeat the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
    Mrs. Clwyd: Surely, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, he would agree that pluralistic press media are at the heart of what is meant by a democratic society. Does he agree that when one man can own three weekday newspapers and two Sunday newspapers, as well as a 50 per cent. stake in BSkyB, that is a totally unacceptable concentration of media ownership? When will he face up to this issue and take some action, or is he simply afraid of Mr. Rupert Murdoch?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady used the word "unacceptable" as the justification for her argument. As I have already said, we keep these matters under review and I do not believe that that adjective can be justified at this time.

    Children's Play
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for children's play.
    Mr. Key: The Sports Council will take over the National Children's Play and Recreation Unit's responsibilities for information and playwork education and training from 1 April 1993. This represents a very positive way forward for children's play.
    Mr. Brandreth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise that widespread concern has been expressed because, since the demise of the National

    669
    Children's Play and Recreation Unit, £500,000, which was formerly dedicated to children's play, has now disappeared within the Sports Council? Does he further accept that there is a widespread feeling that there is a need for a national focus for children's play and that the Sports Council may not be the appropriate forum for that? Perhaps his Department would like to take that on board?
    Mr. Key: First, let me reassure my hon. Friend that £500,000 certainly has not disappeared. It is up to the Sports Council to decide how to spend that money, which was, of course, considered within its budget. I know of my hon. Friend's highly regarded work on behalf of the National Playing Fields Association. I hope that he will join a number of hon. Members who are coming to see me shortly as part of a delegation to discuss the matter.
    Mr. Barry Jones: What is the Government's policy on the sale of school playing fields? Is he aware that such sales are frequently the only way that schools can afford to get themselves modernised? Those sales cause a great deal of anguish in the communities. Is not it time that we were told what the Government's future policy on this important matter is? Will the Minister also bear in mind the difficulties faced by Connah's Quay primary school in my constituency?
    Mr. Key: I am not familiar with the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but if he takes up the matter with the Minister with responsibility in Wales, I shall seek to liaise with him. The general principle and the policy are clear. Successive Ministers with responsibility for sport have said that local authorities, when deciding whether to dispose of playing fields, should consider how much they benefit the local community. First, we must establish how many playing fields there are, where they are and how big they are. The establishment of those facts is now being undertaken by the Sports Council, which I hope will be able to report on the matter by mid-summer.

    Small Theatres
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the regulations affecting small theatres.
    Mr. Brooke: Although the regulations affecting small theatres are not the responsibility of my Department, I have, like my hon. Friend, an interest in their work.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, beneath the great success of British theatre is the heartbeat of the small theatre which provides the first opportunity for many writers, producers and actors? However, the small theatre is a tender flower which needs to be protected. It has suffered various problems in the past, including those relating to the 48-hour rule. The small theatre is now moving into the licensing world—which, although not covered by my right hon. Friend's Department, is legislated for in the House-and there is a risk that the cost and bureaucracy of licensing may once again put the small theatre at risk. Will my right hon. Friend keep a close watch on that issue?
    Mr. Brooke: As I said in my main answer, I share my hon. Friend's interest and I have been delighted to be able to attend performances in small theatres since I took on my present job. As my hon. Friend is aware, a review of the
    670
    licensing laws in pub theatres was carried out a few years ago. The then Home Secretary concluded that the public performance of plays should continue to be licensed under the Theatres Act 1968. In making that decision, he was particularly mindful of the fire and safety implications. I am not persuaded that there is any reason to reopen the issue.
    Mr. Dafis: The Secretary of State may be aware of the problems that have been created by the local management of schools, particularly grant-maintained status, for small theatre and education companies. Will the right hon. Gentleman study the way in which partnership funding currently works? Will he also consider ways in which the problems can be remedied, specifically by strengthening the funding and the contribution from the Arts Council of Great Britain in order to compensate for the current loss of funding from local education authorities?
    Mr. Brooke: The question posed by the hon. Gentleman is more a matter for education Ministers than for me, but I recognise the read-across that he has established. One of the facts that have been brought home to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself during the past year is the extent of the overlap between our responsibilities and those elsewhere. I shall glady look at the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many small and medium-sized theatres such as the Grand theatre in my constituency of Blackpool have benefited from Government support in recent years? Does my right hon. Friend accept that such Government support is much appreciated?
    Mr. Brooke: In 1993–94 the Arts Council of Great Britain will allocate more than £40 million to drama and mime companies. In addition, drama companies benefit from the council's touring fund and the regional arts boards. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of mentioning that.

    Unlisted Buildings (London)
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received arising from consultations on English Heritage's plans to reduce its services on unlisted buildings in London.
    Mr. Key: I have received approximately 80 representations on English Heritage's London proposals as a whole, few of them relating specifically to unlisted buildings.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Minister acknowledge that the majority of representations that he has received are opposed to the proposals? Does he recognise that there are many fine buildings in London that do not have listed status? Does he further acknowledge that, outside London, county councils have the overriding responsibility for, and provide much of the special advice to, the district councils? If the proposals are adopted there will be a mishmash-an unco-ordinated approach in the absence of an organisation with overall responsibility for London. Does not such a policy constitute short-sightedness and short-termism of the worst sort? Will not he and his

    671
    colleagues be condemned by future generations for the destruction of our architectural heritage and London's character?
    Mr. Key: That is rather strange, considering the massive growth in the number of listed buildings in the past decade or so. Of course, English Heritage has listened carefully to the representations that it has received. In making the revised proposals, it has taken full account of the responses to its consultation paper. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will endorse English Heritage's final proposals only if he is satisfied that they make proper provision for the safeguarding of London's heritage.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend encourage English Heritage in its basic task, which it does well, of preserving and protecting the marvellous heritage of important historic buildings and monuments? That is what future generations will care about.
    Mr. Key: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the most magnificent —Hampton Court—is in his constituency and I know that he takes a great interest in it. English Heritage has performed remarkably well in the decade since it was founded and I have no doubt of its intention to continue to do so.

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of this year's local government finance settlement on public library provision.
    Mr. Key: I shall collect information from library authorities about their expenditure plans for the coming financial year. That will enable me to make an accurate overall assessment.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that in the city of Salford tremendous cuts in local government expenditure are bound to overflow into the library service? Does the Minister agree that at a time when we are talking about young people and crime, the last thing we want is to see libraries closing?
    Mr. Key: I am, indeed, aware of the position in Salford. I follow the affairs of Salford with great interest and I do not forget that Salford is the home of the first free municipal library service in the world. Of course, public libraries must deliver a comprehensive and efficient service. No decisions have yet been taken by many local authorities in respect of their general or library budgets, but I am watching the matter closely.

    Independent Television Commission (Chairman)
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to appoint the next chairman of the Independent Television Commission; and what procedure he will follow.
    Mr. Brooke: Sir George Russell's current term of appointment as chairman of the Independent Television Commission runs out on 31 December 1994. Sir George is proving an excellent chairman of the ITC. It is much too early to consider succession issues.
    Mr. Mullin: May I put it to the Secretary of State that Sir George is proving a not very adequate chairman of the ITC—[Interruption.] I put that as generously as I can. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread anxiety, both in commercial television and at the ITC, about the failure of that organisation to monitor the disastrous impact of the Broadcasting Act 1990 on commercial television and about the wide gap between promise and performance in the franchise applications?
    Mr. Brooke: The second half of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question did not reinforce, sustain or provide a rationale for the first half. He was making a subjective judgment. As he well knows, these are early days. I have every confidence in the ITC.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the chairman of the ITC that our constituents expect him to take firm action to stop the constant flow of pornography, violence and degradation into their homes through the television screen?
    Mr. Brooke: I realise why my hon. Friend raises that matter. In certain considerations, it obviously falls to the ITC to take action. In others, it is the responsibility of the ITC to offer advice and for other action to be taken.

    Calcutt Report
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will introduce Government proposals for legislation arising from the Calcutt report.
    Mr. Brooke: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made to the House on 14 January on publication of the review of press self-regulation.
    Mr. Mitchell: Why does the Secretary of State not call off the protracted farce and admit that he does not have an idea in his head as to what to do, that he is not allowed a policy by the puppet-masters in the Tory press and that it is impossible to do anything without infringing the freedom of the press? His strategy is to wait until the storm passes and attempt to kill off the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith in the process.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman, who knows how fond I am of him, dramatically oversimplifies the issue. He knows that his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith would agree that his Bill is directed to a limited part of the issue, whereas we are looking at a wider one.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to deal with most of the occasional excesses of the press is by public criticism and that one of the last things to do is to tie the press up in legislative knots, which would mean that it would lose the power to do good at the expense of trying to stop it doing things that are wrong?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion, which has much merit and wisdom. He will be aware of the evidence given by our noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to the Select Committee on National Heritage last week. The Lord Chancellor expressed the concern that a legal route would be made overcomplicated by lawyers.

    Television Subtitling
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what arrangements he has made to monitor the operation of subtitling provisions by ITV companies since 1 January; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: The Independent Television Commission is responsible for monitoring the requirements on subtitling both in the ITV licences and in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
    Mr. Barnes: The deaf and hard of hearing depend on subtitling for television programmes. The change on 1 January from Oracle to the ITV companies was a disaster because for some days there was no decent subtitling. We must ensure that that does not occur again. Does the Minister agree that the Government have a responsibility in this matter, as well as the ITV companies?
    Mr. Key: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the technical problems to which he refers with the subtitling services on ITV. Those have now been resolved and the new subtitling system should offer much greater benefits in future. I am sympathetic to the needs of those with disabilities and I shall keep in touch with developments which may be of benefit.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: As a member of the Standing Committee on the Broadcasting Bill, may I tell my hon. Friend that we were anxious to see the maximum amount of subtitling for the deaf and the hard of hearing? It is fair to say that, so far, they have been disappointed and we should all be grateful for the help that my hon. Friend has agreed to give to ensure that the maximum subtitling is available in future.
    Mr. Key: I compliment my hon. Friend on the attention given to the Bill by that Committee. Section 35 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 requires that channel 3 and channel 5 licensees must provide 10 per cent. more subtitling in their first year of operation than was achieved by ITV companies in the previous year. Thereafter, the ITC would set reasonable targets to increase subtitling. There is a requirement that in 1998, 50 per cent. of the average number of programme hours will offer subtitling.

    Tourism
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the number of visitors to the United Kingdom through organised tours during 1992.
    Mr. Key: Latest figures from the international passenger survey show that there were 1,202,000 visits to the United Kingdom by holidaymakers on marketed package holidays in the first half of 1992-54 per cent. more than in the first half of 1991. They represented 36 per cent. of overseas holiday visits and 15 per cent. of all overseas visitors.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind that millions of people from this country take package holidays and tours overseas, will he take steps to ensure that there is proper co-ordination in this country between hoteliers and those responsible for resorts and facilities so that we may attract visitors on package holidays? To that end, will he ensure that the
    674
    British Tourist Authority has the marketing funds available, adjusted for the devaluation of the pound, so that the number of visitors to this country is maintained?
    Mr. Key: Just as important as the British Tourist Authority doing its work abroad—which it does magnificently, whatever the vagaries of the pound—is the necessity to ensure that this country has the facilities to receive package holiday visitors. The organisations concerned are making rapid progress on co-ordination, and individual resorts and destinations, including my hon. Friend's constituency of Harrogate, are blazing a trail in that respect by their approach to joint marketing strategies.

    Private Funding
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress he is making in raising private funds for support of heritage and the arts.
    Mr. Brooke: There has been a remarkable increase in private sector support for the arts, from less than £600,000 in 1976 to more than £65 million last year. Our business sponsorship incentive scheme has itself attracted almost £40 million since its inception in 1984. English Heritage is also making good progress in promoting private sector funding.
    Mr. Banks: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the effect of the recession is such that many companies now find themselves unable to put into arts and heritage the money that they previously put in, and will he look into this? As he was clearly not over-enthusiastic about my idea of raising money through sponsorship of the royal family, will he look carefully at the recent suggestion by one of the timeshare experts that up to £100 million could be raised by using one of the royal palaces for timeshare? If he is looking for extra money, Trusthouse Forte and Holiday Inns would probably be interested in buying one of the palaces, which are clearly not all necessary.
    Mr. Brooke: The first half of the hon. Gentleman's question was obviously serious. As a result of the spread of sponsors and the fact that smaller companies are now sponsoring arts and heritage, the amount of sponsorship continues to rise even though, as he rightly says, some larger companies have had to drop out because of the recession. As to the second half of his question, he does not seem discouraged by my reaction to his previous suggestion. As I said then, I am delighted to see that he is continuing to do research.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission by how much the National Audit Office has increased in real terms the resources devoted to measuring the outcomes achieved by Government services.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): In the five year s to 31 March 1993, the National Audit Office will have increased the number of

    675
    value-for-money studies produced by some 50 per cent., from 33 to 50. Over the same period, the resources devoted to that work have risen in real terms by 45 per cent.
    Mr. Bayley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, I am talking not just about value for money or efficiency but about effectiveness. As Government policy is moving towards an audit of policy in terms of quality and not just quantity of service provided, should we not be looking at the effectiveness of surgeons' operations in the national health service-that is, whether they make people better—rather than just the number of operations? Does the National Audit Office have sufficient resources to carry out such outcome studies on effectiveness as well as efficiency?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Comptroller and Auditor General has frequently reported on the health service and, as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will bear out, the reports are concerned with the quality of service. The reports on the NHS from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health frequently produce tests of quality—the number of patients dealt with, and so on—so the reports from the National Audit Office are pretty good.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what plans there are to increase the resources of the National Audit Office.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office corporate plan for 1993–94 to 1997–98, which was approved by the Commission in July 1992, shows an increase in gross cash resources from £44.6 million to £47.4 million over the next five years. The office also plans to increase its output over the period, mainly as a result of auditing a further 60 accounts following the creation of new next steps agencies.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but could he give the House some sign as to whether the Commission has looked into the latent studies that the National Audit Office could be making? In particular, could he look at the studies being done into defence spending, as I believe that a large number of capital projects approved in the past have not been good value for money?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am tempted to go down that road, but, as the House knows, the Public Accounts Commission is the paymaster of the National Audit Office and matters of content are for the Public Accounts Committee. However, as the Chairman of that Committee will bear out, the National Audit Office has frequently done good research and reports on defence studies, including those into capital projects by the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are also looking into Ministers' perks. Will they be examining, for instance, the Minister of Agriculture's pond, which cost the taxpayer about 4,700 quid? Then things moved on to the security fence. It seems to me that he is building up a farm. Are there any cattle involved, or is a horse-racing stud being built? I should like to know—and I should like to think that the Minister will be paying the bill.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am sure that the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General will be drawn to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to whether the Public Accounts Commission will be examining this matter among the many that it has to study already, I do not really know.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what proportion of the NAO's current budget is allocated to value-for-money audits.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office allocated 56 per cent. of its budget for audit work for value-for-money activities in 1992–93.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will consideration be given to more financing for the National Audit Office for value-for-money audits so that we can examine the Government's estimates of the cost of their legislation, such as the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill? The estimated costs of that measure have more than doubled since it was introduced to the House.
    Sir Peter Hordern: That may well be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee to investigate. I understand that the Comptroller and Auditor General is studying the hon. Gentleman's letter and that the hon. Gentleman will be receiving a reply quite shortly.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Financial Management
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee if he will make a statement on initiatives to improve the financial management of the services of the House.
    Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): Initiatives include the start of a new bill-paying and financial information system and revision of the estimates to allocate costs and receipts to House Departments as a firm basis for financial targets and planning. The Finance and Services Committee will monitor and encourage this process, both when preparing annual estimates and in assessing particular services in consultation with the Director of Finance and Administration.
    Mr. Banks: May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new job, which is the latest in a long and glittering parliamentary career? As he may well be feeling a little nervous, I remind him that I have given him notice of my supplementary question—[Interruption.] I want to be kind. Has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the cost to the House, in terms of financial effectiveness, of the delay in the construction of the Jubilee line extension? Until we know precisely what is going on, the construction of new offices over Westminster station is being delayed.
    Mr. Channon: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his many kindnesses and courtesy to me and for giving me notice of his supplementary question. I can assure him that my Committee is working with the Director of Works, the architect and the staff to get all the approvals in place so that arrangements with London Underground can be concluded when a decision is taken.

    677
    There has been substantial delay, but I hope that the matter will be resolved shortly. If the project is postponed indefinitely, there will be serious implications for the House. That is something which I should think that the House would wish to consider.
    Mr. Tracey: What powers does my right hon. Friend have over the House of Commons car park, where I see many cars which seem never to move from their position from day to day or from week to week? It would seem that some people are using the car park when they are not entitled to do so and that they are doing so without making any payment, thus depriving the City of Westminster of much valuable revenue.
    Mr. Channon: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that, so far as I know, I have no responsibility for that. Perhaps he will address his remarks to the Administration Committee, which I know is considering the matter. I suggest that he has a word with the Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that he does not allow a vast amount of money to be spent on studies of the Refreshment Department which will meet with no one's approval and cost the taxpayer a considerable amount of cash?
    Mr. Channon: I believe that the Refreshment Department is undertaking a study, with consultants, of a range of measures. I note the hon. Lady's views. No doubt the House will want to take a view about these matters in due course. I am sure that they are designed to save money rather than to spend more. We shall see what happens.

    Buildings and Facilities
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision is being made to extend the office facilities of hon. Members and their staff.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the long-term plans to improve the House's buildings and facilities.
    Mr. A. J. Beith(on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Following completion of the phase I building, preparation for the second phase, to provide offices for 210 Members and their staff, is well under way. Some £3 million has been allocated for design work in the next financial year. The tentative occupation date is 1998, but this is dependent on a decision being taken to proceed with the new underground station as part of the Jubilee line extension, to which reference has already been made. Meanwhile, as an interim measure, the House has leased additional space at 7 Millbank to provide offices for 100 Members and their staff, and £7.9 million is earmarked in 1993–94 for fitting-out work.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Does the Commission have a plan which might indicate to the House when, eventually, every Member of Parliament will have, next to the office, used by his or her staff, an office without a bar—(Interruption.] I am sorry
    678
    —a bath. In the late 20th century, it is about time we caught up with office conditions such as were available in the late 19th century.
    Mr. Beith: It is intended that completion of the new parliamentary building, which should occur by the end of this century, will enable every hon. Member who wants an individual office to have one.
    Mr. Greenway: On the important point raised unintentionally by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), may I ask whether there will be cleansing facilities, such as baths and showers, connected with the new offices? Will the right hon. Gentleman also see whether proper cleansing provision can be made for members of the public who come to this House? [Interruption.] Showers, too, perhaps, though I am sure that members of the public, like Members, hardly need showers. Refreshment facilities might well be provided in Westminster Hall—why not?
    Mr. Beith: Detailed arrangements for the rooms in the new parliamentary building are still being considered by the appropriate Committee. However the catering authorities of the House, in the course of the inquiries referred to a moment ago by the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), are also considering facilities for members of the public.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How many Members of this House have the use of more than one office?
    Mr. Beith: I have no information to hand on that point, but if I can find any which might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman I will supply him with it.
    Mr. Dowd: In assessing office space for Members, is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account the disposition of office space in this building? Various offices in the Palace have less need to be in this building than does the accommodation of hon. Members. Is any attempt being made to examine precisely which administrative offices could be moved to outlying buildings so that more hon. Members might be accommodated here?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, and significant progress has been made in that respect with the opening of 1 Parliament street. Further progress will be made by way of the new parliamentary building, to which a number of offices now in this building are expected to be transferred, thereby enabling more Members to be accommodated here.
    Mr. Steen: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why hair-driers are being installed in the public lavatories in the Palace and other parliamentary buildings? Is that a proper use of public money and is there a demand for such a facility?
    Mr. Beith: I was unaware of that development, but I will inquire into it.

    Facilities for Children
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a further statement on progress in seeking to provide children's facilities in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Beith: The Accommodation and Works Committee has now confirmed its earlier decision that no space for a child care facility can be found in the parliamentary estate before the completion of the phase 2 building. Negotiations are now proceeding to establish whether, and at what cost, the House could participate in a joint venture child care scheme being considered by a number of Whitehall Departments. I expect firm proposals to be put before the relevant authorities and the Commission shortly.
    Mrs. Jackson: On our first day back, I suggested that the House should make a new year resolution to make this place more children-friendly. The answer that we have just heard—that there will be no place for children's facilities until the phase 2 building has been completed—is a great shame. Will the right hon. Gentleman please take steps, at the earliest opportunity, to meet the women Opposition Members who have been campaigning for such facilities, as well as other interested Members? While he is thinking about this, he should also look into the appalling situation that occurred last week, in which the half-term holiday fell, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) tried desperately simply to obtain facilities at a reduced rate to accommodate hon. Members' children who were visiting Westminster. It was not possible to obtain any reduced rate accommodation. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will look into that.
    Mr. Beith: The half-term holidays for more northern counties are taking place this week, when my children will be visiting the House.
    The hon. Lady's earlier question related in large part to the much more difficult issue of how the House could provide a crèche or nursery facilities. I was disappointed that the Accommodation and Works Committee was unable to identify suitable accommodation for that purpose in our present building. If the hon. Lady cares to discuss the matter with members of that Committee, she will be made aware of the pressure of other matters that they are having to consider. At least their decision will concentrate attention on the possibility of providing crèche facilities through a joint venture with Government Departments.

    Sittings of the House
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the implementation of the proposals of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): As I reaffirmed at Business Question Time last Thursday, the prospect of progress with the Jopling proposals depends on our discussions through the usual channels.
    Mr. Coombs: I recognise that progress has been made on the Jopling report, especially in the early notice given to hon. Members of recess dates, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable restlessness throughout the House at the general lack of action? Would it be asking too much for him to direct his best endeavours towards ensuring that, even though we may not have a debate on the subject during this Session because of other pressures, there is a statement of intent from the Government on what they propose to do?
    Mr. Newton: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Even if I did not, I would have registered the riot unexpected murmurs—or more than murmurs—of support for my hon. Friend from both sides of the House. I have no doubt that that support has also been registered by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
    We have made rather more informal progress towards the Jopling recommendations than my hon. Friend suggested. Of course, I want to make more formal progress, but it must be against the background of the long and, I believe, proper tradition in the House of seeking to make procedural changes with a degree of agreement among all parties. That remains an important ingredient, as I think that the right hon. Lady would agree.
    Mrs. Beckett: I agree with the Lord President's remarks, but does he accept that whatever views may be held about the sitting hours of the House, a large number of Back Benchers on both sides have reservations about the Government's wish, and the proposal in the report, to have automatic timetabling of all Government legislation? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it known, especially to his colleagues, that it does nothing to ease those fears when the Government use our present guillotine procedures to curtail legislative scrutiny on the basis of a timetable which they then discard, as has happened both with the paving motion for the Maastricht legislation and with the Education Bill last week?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Lady made a similar point about the Education Bill at Business Question Time last week. I do not want to elaborate further on what I said then. The fact is that a reasonable amount of time was allowed for that Bill. We have to plan its progress in relation to other measures and she can expect its remaining stages to come before the House fairly shortly.
    On the right hon. Lady's other comments, as I said in the debate on the Jopling report last July, whatever phrase is used to describe it—whether automatic timetabling or programming—there is no doubt that the report was essentially a balanced package between, on the one hand, changes to improve and in many ways reduce the working hours of the House, against on the other hand a degree of greater certainty on the progress of Bills. It is difficult to understand how the one can proceed without the other.
    Mr. Jopling: Will my right hon. Friend recognise two points? First, the Select Committee did not recommend the automatic timetabling of all Government Bills; it excluded constitutional Bills taken on the Floor of the House. Secondly, it produced a unanimous report almost exactly a year ago, which was endorsed by 85 per cent. of hon. Members in the debate in July, so the Committee has demonstrated admirable restraint and patience. There is now a growing impatience in the House for something to be done to implement its opinions, which I believe are broadly held to be balanced and in need of urgent attention.
    Mr. Newton: I hope that I have already shown that I well understand the point that my right hon. Friend made in the latter part of his remarks. As to the first part, that important point needs to be understood. To put it in shorthand terms, nothing in the Jopling report would have applied to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

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

Statutory Instruments, &c

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland)Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 4 February]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Before we begin the debates on the Bill, I have a statement to make. Right hon. and hon. Members will see that the amendments and new clauses that appear for the first time on today's provisional selection list are identified by an asterisk. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will find that innovation helpful. That procedure will continue in force until the end of this Committee stage, and will then be reviewed by the Chairmen's Panel.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I refer to the statement made to the House last Monday by the Foreign Secretary, relating to the legal position on amendment No. 27, which was included in the group of amendments led by amendment No. 7, on the social fund.
  Clearly, major issues are involved that need to detain the Committee. I put it to you, Mr. Morris, that they must be debated, and that there must be urgent consideration of the Foreign Secretary's remarks last week—which directly contradicted the comments made by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in Committee on 20January.
  The legal implications also must be considered, and perhaps we ought to hear from the Law Officers—who were, after all, the architects of the Foreign Secretary's remarks last week.
  The Committee faces a dilemma. Debate on the group of amendments that included amendment No. 27 has come and gone. We are therefore not in a position to consider either the legal points advanced by the Law Officers to the Foreign Secretary of the policy implications of the changed legal judgment in relation to the social chapter and social protocol.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that the Committee must be given an opportunity to debate those matters on two, almost separate, grounds. First, we must hear from the Law Officers—and they must be answerable to Parliament and not just to Ministers of the Crown for their observations—as to why the views that they expressed were so different from the comments of the Minister of State. Secondly, we need a debate in which to consider the policy implications of the new legal interpretation.
  On Friday last week, the Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, following a request for sight of the legal advice given to the Cabinet by the Law Officers. In his letter, the Prime Minister said:
  "With their agreement, Douglas Hurd set out in his statement in the House on 15 February the advice of the Law Officers. If the House of Commons wishes to have further advice on the meaning and effect of the Bill, Law Officers will be present when the Committee Stage of the Bill resumes."
  I know that this pre-empts your authority to some extent, Mr. Morris, in as much as the Prime Minister appears to
  684
  be offering the House the services of Law Officers so that they can answer questions that—as you know—we wish to put to them. On the other hand, the Prime Minister's offer was made in the context of a legal view of an amendment that has already been debated. That is one of the dilemmas that now face the House.
  Serious questions of substance have arisen, concerning not merely amendment No. 27 but the treaty itself. On 20 January, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
  "The hon. Gentleman"—
  he was addressing the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—
  "knows that the social protocol is an integral part of the treaty of Rome. We shall be party to that protocol even if the arrangements of the 11 which are attached to it do not apply to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 20 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 445.]
  That statement has now been reversed by what the Foreign Secretary told us last week, but it relates to the protocols, not just to one protocol. It seems to be a general policy statement relating to protocols as a whole—and that must have implications not just for the social protocol, but for other protocols attached to the Maastricht treaty.
  In his statement last week, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "I must make it clear that there can be no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 28.]
  We have here a contrast between a Minister who tells us that the protocols are part of the treaty, and a Law Officer who is apparently telling us that they are not. The Foreign Secretary, meanwhile, tells us that the principle to which he will adhere is the ratification of the treaty by Parliament. A massively important issue of principle regarding the legalities needs to be resolved, and I suggest to you, Mr. Morris, that that cannot possibly be done other than in a debate involving the Law Officers and enabling them to answer our questions.
  I wish to raise some other issues, perhaps less significant than the one that I have just cited. First, there is the impact of the Law Officers' revision of opinion on other parts of the treaty that may have already been dealt with. Can the House feel confident that the legal views expressed by the Minister of State in our earlier debates are sound, or will a revision now take place across the board? I direct your attention specifically, Mr. Morris, to the debate on title I that took place at the beginning of the Committee stage. We relied on Foreign Office legal advice, which I understand came from Treasury solicitors.
  I should also like to know whether there is a prospect of new amendments being tabled to that part of the treaty, or to the protocols relating to the social protocol, now that a debate on the issue—as distinct from a debate on the legalities—has come and gone. Many hon. Members are trying to find ways of tabling further amendments that would allow the House to make a specific judgment on certain aspects of the social protocol.
  It would be outrageous if the House were bypassed in some way by a nitpicking legalistic exercise, simply to get around the political difficulties that face the Government when they are likely to be defeated on amendment No. 27. We require nothing short of a debate on the Law Officers' present views, which they refuse to put in the Library of the House and to give the House.
  Therefore, I ask whether you will accept a motion, That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: There cannot be anything further to that point of order, because at this stage I have to consider the motion put before me, and before I rule on that I must comment on the policy implications mentioned by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
  I am grateful to the hon. Member who leads for the Opposition on the Committee. I listened to the Foreign Secretary's statement, and subsequently read it, with the greatest care. We are some way off a vote on amendment No. 27, and other developments may occur at any time, but at this juncture I am minded to take seriously the need for a further debate before the Committee votes on that amendment.
  I have also listened to the hon. Member for Hamilton and to the feelings of the House. He has sought to move a motion that I report progress and ask leave to sit again. In weighing up my decision, may I remind the Committee that Standing Order No. 33 lays down that the debate shall be confined to the matter of the dilatory motion—in this case, the effect on ratification of the treaty of carrying amendment No 27, as set out in the Foreign Secretary's statement.
  I therefore accept the motion that I report progress and ask leave to sit again, and I call Mr. George Robertson.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: Order. There cannot be anything further to that, in that this is a very important matter. I call Mr. George Robertson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris."] Order. As I accept that what I said may have come as a surprise to certain hon. Members, I shall repeat what is laid down by Standing Order No. 33, so that there will be no misunderstanding. We shall keep the debate firmly within the confines of the Standing Order—that is, to the matter of the dilatory motion, which in this case means the effect on ratification of the treaty of carrying amendment No. 27, as set out in the Foreign Secretary's statement.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: In the Foreign Secretary's speech, in column 30, he said that the amendment on the Committee of the Regions was similarly affected. That is the amendment that we were discussing before the Committee stopped. While I accept that it is vital that we consider the statement on amendment No. 27, the Committee was considering an amendment relating to the Committee of the Regions, and the Foreign Secretary said:
  "Another amendment that can be cited in this respect is the one about membership of the Committee of the Regions." —[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 30.]
  Surely, as the Foreign Secretary mentioned that, and as the Committee is considering that amendment, the issue of its relevance to the Committee of the Regions could also be relevant. Is that not fair?
  The Chairman: Order. When we return to the debate on cohesion and amendment No. 13, it will be in order to discuss that matter.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Sir Russell Johnston.
  Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. What duration will the debate on the motion be entitled to?
  The Chairman: That is not a matter for me at this point.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. One of the issues that we did not cover in earlier discussions about the legal consequences of amendment No. 27 was the way in which the doctrine of judicial review might be applied to a situation in which a majority of the House were in favour of ratification of a treaty, which could not legally be ratified by that method. I hope that you will allow discussion of that issue and even suggest to the Attorney-General that he might explain his wider position because, as you well know, there is a conspiracy in this House among the three Front Benches to get the treaty ratified by hook or by crook. It is quite possible that that could be done unlawfully. We might be heading for a confrontation between a sovereign Parliament and the judiciary. It would be interesting—even vital, I suggest —to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explain his position, as a Law Officer, in that dilemma.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman want a reply?
  Mr. Budgen: Yes.
  The Chairman: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attention. Any speech that the hon. Gentleman makes should be related to the Foreign Secretary's statement.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: A number of hon. Members wished to speak in the debate on Monday 4 February on the Committee of the Regions. Will you, Mr. Morris, make it perfectly clear to the House that whatever time is allocated to the debate on the motion will not be deducted from that allocated when the subject returns for debate?
  The Chairman: Yes.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I first thank you for your announcement about asterisked amendments, contingent on a point of order that I raised some time ago? May I draw your attention to another matter that may considerably assist the Committee and those outside—the possibility of showing on future selection sheets the votes that are permissible immediately after the end of each group of amendments? We shall encounter complications later, and that would simplify things.
  In his statement last week, the Foreign Secretary said that he wished
  "to make a statement on the process of ratification of the Maastricht treaty."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol 219, c.27.]
  Can we assume that his supplementary answers are also covered by the definition that you have just given?
  The Chairman: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I cannot anticipate votes or make a statement without

  687
  consulting my colleagues on the Chairmen's Panel. On the second point, the Law Officers will have heard the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) asked how long we can debate the dilatory motion under Standing Order No. 33. I draw your attention. Mr. Morris, to the fact that, normally, reporting progress at the end of the day can be contested and debated, and the Government have to get a closure if necessary. Many such debates have taken two or three hours.
  It is important to make it clear that this is not just a dilatory motion to debate progress on a Bill but is more important, as it is about what the Government had to say last week and the arguments that have taken place since. It is pretty clear that the Government are in a complete mess on the Maastricht Bill; the wheels have come off.
  I argue that, like a motion for the Adjournment of the House, the motion should be debated for a full day. This matter affects everyone. The closure should not be accepted after two or three hours, because many hon. Members will want to speak.
  The Government have thrown their Bill into turmoil. It has all the seeds of decadence of the years between 1977 and 1979, when devolution Bills were presented. You can smell it in the air. Almost every constitutional measure in recent years has finished up down a big black hole. We should debate the motion throughout the day, and the Government Whips should not contemplate closing it down after a short time.
  The Chairman: I thank the hon. and experienced Member for his advice.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As this debate is on amendment No. 27, could you clarify the fact that the amendment relates to clause 1(1) but not to clause 1(2), which deals with the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978? It is vital to seek your guidance, because there might be an attempt to turn an important dilatory motion into a dilatory procedure with an effect on the passing of the whole Bill, on which many hon. Members want to make progress for exactly the reasons—this country's interests—outlined by the Foreign Secretary at the weekend.
  The Chairman: I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads amendment No. 27 again, as it will clarify the issue.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. While most hon. Members will welcome the opportunity to debate the dilatory motion, can you say whether a copy of the legal ruling on which the motion is based has been made available in the Vote Office? It would be especially helpful to us, together with guidance from the Law Officers of Scotland, where there might even be a different interpretation.
  The Chairman: Not to my knowledge.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: This is a very important issue, Mr. Morris, and I am sure that the House is grateful for your ruling. However, as you said yourself, it has come as a surprise to many of us, who were not expecting it. You will know that, even on the most charitable interpretation, the Government's legal advice has been a little erratic recently. Has the Attorney-General
  688
  also been taken by surprise by the ruling? It is important that he has had sufficient time to prepare his remarks in response to the debate.
  The Chairman: No one knew of my ruling.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Hasty legal advice is bad legal advice. It is clear that the Attorney-General has not had time properly to prepare his speech. It is also clear that your ruling, Mr. Morris, is of considerable significance to the House and to the progress of the Bill as a whole, which is what many of us want.
  In a Standing Committee, if something is important technically and practically, it is possible for the Committee to bring together a series of experts. In this case, we are dealing with an important point of legal interpretation, on which lawyers in this country and on the continent will have views which would be relevant to the Committee if the Committee is to make an informed decision. Is there any procedure whereby a Committee of the whole House could, like a Standing Committee, bring together relevant experts to ensure that, this time, we get it right?
  The Chairman: There is no such procedure, but the Chair expects all hon. Members to be following the Bill —it has been a week since the Foreign Secretary made his statement.
  Sir Russell Johnston rose—
  The Chairman: Again?
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry if I did not explain myself clearly enough last time, Mr. Morris. All I want to know is whether the debate can continue until a closure is moved and you accept it, or, if a closure motion is not moved, until 10 pm or, perhaps, until tomorrow? Perhaps you could also explain why the motion is called a "dilatory" motion, because it so admirably describes the Government's position?
  The Chairman: The answer is that the absolute time limit is 10 pm.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The debate revolves around what, for many of us, are difficult legal points. The debate has been announced without preparation for those difficult legal points—[Interruption.] I am only trying to be fair. It seems that these matters will be determined in the end by the courts. There will be one opinion against another.
  It is difficult to determine where the balance of the argument lies. A number of legal opinions have been available. Sir Anthony Lester, QC has given one opinion and Opposition Front-Bench Members have another. None of us has had the opportunity to see those legal judgments. You have accepted the dilatory motion, Mr. Morris, but could it not be debated later, when we have had time to prepare for it?
  The Chairman: Mr. Robertson.
  Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris, for your decision. It is right for the Committee and right for parliamentary democracy that we have this opportunity to consider the remarkable situation. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has unprecedently repudiated, almost completely, all that

  689
  his right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State, told the Committee on a previous occasion.
  I know that I was not alone in being stunned a week ago to hear the Foreign Secretary tell the House that all that had gone before was wrong. He apologised to the House, it must be said, for that, but he entirely repudiated not only his own colleague in the Department, but the legal advice to which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had held firm for the previous 10 months.
  The Committee and the outside world must keep in mind the fact that amendment No. 27 was tabled on 20 May 1992–10 months ago. Amendment No. 27 was no ordinary amendment. It was not likely to be seen inside the portals of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as simply one of the 450 amendments that were tabled immediately after Second Reading.
  The social protocol—the opt-out from the social chapter—was the jewel in the Prime Minister's crown when he came back from Maastricht, with the Tory tabloid newspapers crying, "Game, set and match." The social protocol was at the heart of the Government's strategy, at the heart of the treaty and at the heart of the Bill which was given a Second Reading in the House last year.
  Amendment No. 27, which sought to exclude the whole social protocol from the Bill, must have commanded attention deep within the recesses of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stretching from the solicitors who advised, through the clever officials who have given the Minister of State his speeches and advice, right up to the Foreign Secretary. The amendment must have transfixed them because of the impact that it might eventually have on the ratification of the treaty.
  Last year, on the day following the date scheduled for the Danish referendum, the Committee was ready to deal with the Bill. The Committee was scheduled to have its first sitting last June. The Minister of State would have had his notes ready and available, and would have had his preparations made, as was true of many Opposition Members. It was believed then that progress on ratification of the Maastricht treaty might be quite swift.
  There was no way in which the Minister of State, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and even the Foreign Secretary could have held the view that the issue could be postponed, put off, shovelled under the carpet and simply left to be worried about another day. They knew about amendment No. 27. They had worked things out. They must have pondered closely the implications of the amendment.
  The Minister of State, who had by that stage tendered his resignation and entered one of the longest periods of notice ever given by a Minister, intervened repeatedly in the debate on the group of amendments led by amendment No. 7. The right hon. Gentleman was not speaking off the top of his head. His remarks cannot be dismissed as one of "Tristan's flights of fancy", as some would have had us believe over the past weekend.
  The right hon. Gentleman, who is a Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is a far cleverer man than that. As he sits on the Treasury Bench today, he gives the impression of a man of casual habit, relaxed and laid back—almost to the extreme, now that he has handed
  690
  in his resignation—as he tries to pilot the Bill through the House. But there is nothing relaxed about him, as Baroness Thatcher found out to her cost.
  When the right hon. Gentleman came to the House on 20 January, he knew what he was about. His speech had been worked out and planned in advance.
  4 pm
  Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point about the Minister's speech, which had been worked out in advance. Is it not clear that, if the legal advisers in the Foreign Office had had any doubt about the accuracy of the opinion they were giving, they would have consulted the Attorney-General's office in any event? Apart from the importance and implications of the subject, if there had been a mere scintilla of doubt within the minds of those advisers, they would certainly have sought a second opinion from the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend has two areas of expertise that allow him to make that cogent point. First, he is a lawyer, and no one knows lawyers like other lawyers, even if they always disagree with each other. Secondly, not only did my hon. Friend serve with me for a long time as a member of the Opposition Front-Bench foreign affairs team, but he worked in the Foreign Office as a diplomat. Therefore, he knows only too well how cautious officials are inside the Foreign Office.
  My hon. Friend has rightly put his finger on the matter. If there had been the slightest doubt in the minds of advisers about the advice they were to give to the Minister of State, and had they felt any caution about the strength of their opinion, the first thing they would have done was go to the Attorney-General, so that his Department could clear up the matter.
  When the Minister of State came to the House on 20 January, his remarks were based on authority, and all the backing that comes from the heavyweight authorities of the Foreign Office who service him and the country. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The hon. Gentleman knows that the social protocol is an integral part of the treaty of Rome. We shall be party to that protocol even if the arrangements of the 11, which are attached to it, do not apply to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 20 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 445.]
  The right hon. Gentleman repeated those remarks in the House and outside it. He even took to writing them in a letter to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), in the faint hope that, somehow, the Liberal Democrats might be dislodged from their consistent support for the social protocol and the social chapter. There was no mistake about the meaning of the Minister's remarks.
  I do not know when the right hon. Gentleman was taken aside by his boss—I do not know whether that was a private meeting or a public humiliation. One can only guess at the theatre that now takes place inside the Conservative Government. One can only imagine what it was like for the right hon. Gentleman, who is so laid back that he does not even have a desk in his office at the Foreign Office. He just sits in an armchair and greets the assembled dignitaries who come before him.
  One can only imagine how stunned the right hon. Gentleman must have been when, at some point in the week before last, he heard from the Foreign Secretary that everything he had said was wrong, that he had misled the

  691
  House with the advice he had offered, and that the Foreign Secretary, no less, was going to have to come to the House on 15 February to apologise on his behalf, because everything he had said before was wrong. I think that that is material for a book—a novel, one might say—and there is no better man to write it, with all those characters, unbelievable though they may be, than the Foreign Secretary himself.
  Mr. Marlow: Is not the reality that, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made his statement, he was in political mode? He was trying to put the frighteners on the Opposition parties. He knows that they want to get the Bill through, as he does. He was trying to say that what they were doing was against the interests of the Bill. At the same time, the Government were trying to put the frighteners on their Members by totally misrepresenting the social protocol and saying that, if hon. Members voted for the amendment, they would have the social charter thrust down their throats. However, that did not work, and they had to do something else to get themselves off the hook, so they approached the Attorney-General for new legal advice.
  Mr. Robertson: I was about to come to the real modus behind the operation but, as usual, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has arrived at the conclusion faster than others. That is why, I believe, he is destined to keep his position below the Gangway, probably for the rest of his political career.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there might have been a simpler motive? Might not the Government, perhaps along with some of the other parties, have been trying to give Parliament the impression that it was deciding the great business? That was all right as long as Parliament behaved itself, but the moment that it seemed that the clever, saintly Members of Parliament who were carrying out such important work were going to vote against the Government, they pulled the rug away. The Government said, "We are terribly sorry, but your opinions do not count." Is that not a far more simple and objective possibility than all the complex legal suggestions?
  Mr. Robertson: One only had to read the heavyweight newspapers last week—even the tabloids broke through the fog of the Government's propaganda—to see precisely what the Government were about: faced with defeat, they produced yet another legal opinion. We know that.
  Sometimes, when I consider the Conservative Government, an old Glaswegian phrase comes into my mind: one sandwich short of a picnic. The Government seem so clueless, incompetent and capable of mismanagement that they have taken that policy to an art form. Anyone intervening at any time in the debate is likely to produce a more reasonable explanation of what happened than the one that we heard from the Foreign Secretary last Monday.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many lawyers—in-house, as it were—the Foreign Office have? When they have to interpret a treaty, do they normally go to the Attorney-General for advice? It seems that the Foreign Office already has a substantial legal staff, headed by the gentleman who is a knight, and therefore presumably a most distinguished lawyer.
  It seems odd that the distinguished legal advice, which must have been given carefully—and, I dare say, been
  692
  checked with other lawyers—should suddenly be swept aside as though the man offering it were an ignorant country attorney. The great, grand Attorney-General told him, "My good man, you have hardly been able to read either the treaty or the amendment properly—allow an educated person to give a better interpretation." It seems that the Government are either playing around with the House or being grossly insulting to the dignified and honourable lawyers of a great Department.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman poses one of the most difficult questions when he asks me how many lawyers there are in the Foreign Office. The answer is, either too many or too few—I am not entirely certain. Last year, I was asked why I thought that the progress in Russia had not been as catastrophic as people had predicted. I suggested that it was perhaps because there were not enough economists there. At present, there seem to be too few or too many lawyers here.
  I am impressed by the naivety of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who seems to suggest that the fact that the head of the legal department of the Foreign Office has a knighthood gives him an automatic qualification. One has only to look at the dazzling row of medals among Conservative Members to see the naivety of his opinion. If the hon. Gentleman had voted differently in the paving debate, he might have had at least two knighthoods by now. He might even join Lord Tebbit in the other Chamber eventually.
  I return to the issue, because, humorous as the chaos and confusion in the Government is, it is serious and devastating for the nature of parliamentary democracy. We are not talking about some simple issue. We are not dealing with a hair-splitting argument about some subsection of some clause of some ordinary Bill. We are talking about the constitution and future constitution of the United Kingdom, as will be enshrined in United Kingdom law.
  That is where the joke ceases to be a joke, and descriptions such as that which Mr. Peter Riddell so prosaically wrote in The Times last week—of the Government appearing like a spiv business man with a sharp lawyer—encapsulate the nature of a Government who are sadly the Government with whom the people of the United Kingdom and all our constituents have to live and of whom they have to bear the consequences.
  Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that probably the simple reason for the Government's decision and the statement made by the junior Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), on 20 January was part and parcel of what many of us have experienced in the past 14 years? Our experience is of a Government imbued with arrogance and contempt not only for the British people but for Parliament and the House of Commons. Many times during the past 14 years, Ministers have trotted out smart answers such as were trotted out on 20 January. They always thought that they could obtain the requisite votes in the appropriate Lobby at the end of the day.
  The past few months have been characterised by the Government not realising what is taking place. They did not realise that the Labour Opposition would vote solidly against them. They probably did not realise that perhaps

  693
  the tin-pot Liberals would deliver this time. They probably thought that the Tory rebels did not have the guts to go into the Lobby on the social chapter.
  I am absolutely convinced that the statement that was made that day was born of the arrogance of the Tory party and the Ministers who sit on the Front Bench. They thought that they could get away with it. Now they know that, on this occasion at least, they cannot.
  Mr. Robertson: I do not often agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. That is one of the sad accidents of the broad churches that our political parties represent. However, I agree with him wholeheartedly that we have on display an example of the arrogance that has come from too many years in power and too many assumptions that a Minister can simply be walked into the Chamber one day to say one thing to Parliament and walked out the next day and replaced by yet another Minister saying precisely the opposite, as if we were all expected to believe that both statements commanded authority and truth.
  Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might have been saved a great deal of trouble? Everyone in the Committee will remember that we asked time and time again for the attendance of the Attorney-General when the Minister of State was in trouble over arguments of justiciability. Would it not have been better if the Attorney-General, who is after all a learned and knighted member of the Committee, had been in attendance on both 20 and 27 January, when he could have pulled the coat tails of his right hon. Friend? Does that not show that his opinion must have been asked only after those dates?
  Mr. Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend about our request for the Law Officers to be present in a previous debate. Perhaps a subject for later discussion will be whether that issue will be the subject of some other legal review, given the strength and vigour with which the statement was made. However, I have to say that I took the trouble to check on its legality, and was reasonably satisfied with what was said.
  But I believe that my hon. Friend is wrong in assuming that, if the Attorney-General had been here for that previous debate, he would have pulled the coat tails of the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who has occasionally trailed his coat before.
  The reality is that the right hon. Member for Watford spoke the truth at that time. The Attorney-General's view became apparent only later, when defeat on amendment No. 27 was staring the Government in the face. Not only have the Government the arrogance to push Ministers in to tell the Committee whatever it wants to hear, but Law Officers seem to be wheeled into the arena to offer contrary legal advice as and when it suits Ministers' political convenience. That is much more sinister.
  Mr. Giles Radice: Does my hon. Friend think that the Law Officers were consulted by the Foreign Office, and that they agreed with what the Foreign Office said on that day?
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Robertson: I cannot answer that. No doubt the Attorney-General will answer it. It is one of the questions that I pose to him in endorsing what my hon. Friend says. It is inconceivable that, had the Foreign Office lawyers and the Treasury solicitors who may have been advising them been in any doubt whatever, the Attorney-General's office would not have been called upon to offer advice. The Committee demands answers from the Attorney-General in this short debate as to whether any such advice was sought and whether advice on any issue relating to the treaty was offered to the Foreign Office.
  Mr. Radice: If not, why not?
  Mr. Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  I have a series of questions for the Attorney-General, who the Prime Minister said would help the House, but before asking them, I should like to put a central point.
  All along, the Prime Minister and Ministers have made it clear that it was for Parliament to ratify the Maastricht treaty. They put down hon. Members who called for a referendum. They argued against a referendum, and may do so again in Committee, on the basis that it was proper and right for Parliament to decide. They said that it was for Parliament to consider the great, complicated, detailed and serious matters of the treaty.
  I agree that it is right to consider such matters in Parliament, because the treaty is not a fitting subject for a simple yes or no in a referendum. However, I disagree with the Government, in that I believe that Parliament should have the power to ratify the treaty and be allowed to make decisions. I agree with the parliamentary Labour party and the Labour conference that we should not use amendments to wreck the treaty, but on some areas of the treaty, Parliament can make decisions.
  Last week, Parliament, people throughout the country and those on all sides of the political spectrum were stunned when the Government said that, although Parliament would decide and ratify the treaty, those areas of the treaty amended by Parliament would not damage or destroy the treaty's integrity, and the Government would simply use the royal prerogative to avoid any voice, vote or decision by Parliament.
  We were told at the beginning of the whole process that only some parts of the treaty needed to be ratified and put into domestic law. Titles 2, 3 and 4 of the treaty require an amendment to European Community legislation. Title 1 is excluded, and is therefore ratified by the royal prerogative, and, as we heard in the debate on that title, it was justiciable in the international court. Title 5, on home affairs and justice, and title 6, on common, foreign and security policy, and the final provisions of the treaty are not before the Committee. They are justiciable in international law and do not require amendments to the European Communities Act 1972, as amended by the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986.
  The Attorney-General: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the Committee. Therefore, let me remind him what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said last week about ratification:
  "I must make it clear that there can be no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. The House will have the opportunity on Third Reading, after detailed consideration of all aspects of the Bill, to decide whether the Bill should pass

  695
  into law. The United Kingdom will not ratify the treaty unless the Bill is approved by Parliament."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 28.]
  I should like the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that nothing could be clearer.
  Mr. Robertson: Let me say—
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We are here dealing with a Bill the long title of which says:
  "make provision consequential on the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992."
  In the Bill, it is clear that the matters that are to be inserted —that is, to be dealt with in respect of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act and the consolidated European treaties—include the protocols adopted at Maastricht on that date.
  It must follow that, as the words "other than the social chapter" did not appear, we were intending to legislate not merely by prerogative but by legislation in respect of all those protocols. Therefore, I submit that the matters that we are dealing with now are matters that relate to the long title and, if we do not continue to deal with them under that long title, the Bill will have to be disbanded.
  The Chairman: That is a matter for debate, not a matter for me.
  Mr. Robertson: I agree with the Attorney-General in one respect. I do not intend to mislead the Committee. I wish that it were possible that Ministers, who have now varied their position 100 per cent., were in a position to say that all the time. The Attorney-General has read oat part of a statement made by the Foreign Secretary last week. I shall read it again, so that the Committee is certain of the quote:
  "I must make it clear that there can be no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 28.]
  He referred to "the treaty". Something happened between the day when the right hon. Member for Watford came along with one legal view, and the taking of the view that is being expressed today—that the word "treaty" does not include the protocol on social policies. That is the difference and the distinction, and that is why the Attorney-General will have to explain, in some painful detail, why the change took place and what were the reasons for it. It is not clear to the majority of hon. Members that the change need have taken place, because it was not there at the beginning of the process.
  When the right hon. Member for Watford said:
  "the social protocol is an integral part of the treaty of Rome." —[Official Report, 20 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 445.],
  he was stating a fact, based on a legal opinion that he had secured. The Attorney-General is now telling us another fact, but it is completely the opposite.
  The titles that I mentioned do not have to be ratified by means of legislation, and the House will never again touch titles 1, 5, 6 and 7 of the Maastricht treaty in the ratification and implementation process, because that will be done by royal prerogative. The social chapter was not included in that category at the beginning of the process, but, magically, with defeat facing the Government, it is now included. What the Attorney-General said is right, because he is a fine lawyer making a fine point, but there
  696
  is a bigger issue at stake, and that is what he will have to answer. That is one of the crucial questions in the context of this debate.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give way.
  Mr. Robertson: I want to make progress, because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Morris. However, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
  Mr. Maclennan: The Foreign Secretary said that there was
  "no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary processes."— [Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 28.]
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the right hon. Gentleman was merely stating the obvious and begging the question whether normal parliamentary processes under section 6(2) of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 required the protocol to be enacted?
  Mr. Robertson: Begging the question is one of the polite or legal ways that can be used to describe what is going on. Fine legal distinctions will not blind the House of Commons or the country to the way in which the Government are dealing with this exercise.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I know that his intervention would be valuable and helpful, as ever, but I shall resist the temptation to allow him to intervene.
  I have a series of questions for the Attorney-General. I believe that they are required to be asked before the Committee can move on to further consideration of the Bill. My first question drives to the heart of this debate: why is the House of Commons not getting a copy of the Attorney-General's legal opinion? It has been made available to Ministers, and it is being made available inside Government. It must have been offered as an olive branch to the head of the legal department of the Foreign Office. It was the basis of a volte-face by the Foreign Secretary last Monday.
  The Attorney-General is, of course, a Minister in the Government. He advises the Government, but he is a Minister of the Crown. He must, by virtue of his office, advise the House of Commons as well. As we are dealing with matters that concern the authority of the House of Commons, why are we to be denied the formal advice that was offered by the Attorney-General?
  Is the protocol part of the treaty? We do not want semantics, and we do not want questions begged. 'We merely want to know whether the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford, was right when he spoke on 20 January. Is the protocol concerned with the social policy part of the treaty? Are all the other 20-odd protocols to the Maastricht treaty part of the treaty, or are they not? If they are not, why are they not? They certainly were part of it when we began our consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  I ask the Attorney-General to tell us when it was that the view of the Minister of State was formally decided. When did the doubts creep in, and why? Who was involved

  697
  in making the decision that led to the abandonment of the Garel-Jones legal opinion and left the Minister of State hanging out to dry?
  If titles I, V, VI, and VII were not needed and were specifically exempted from the necessity to be in domestic law for the United Kingdom, why is it that we have discovered only now that the social protocol is not on the list? Is it the Government's position that the protocol can be ratified? I use "ratified" in the context of the treaty of the European Communities. If the protocol can be ratified by royal prerogative, can our vote on amendment No. 27 be bypassed by a royal or executive push of the pen?
  Will the Attorney-General tell us about the significance of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, in which there is a specific instruction to government that no treaty can be ratified other than through Parliament if any extension of the powers of the European Parliament is involved.
  There is no doubt whatsoever in anybody's mind that the powers of the European Parliament have been extended as a consequence of the Maastricht treaty—not just by the introduction of the novel negative assent procedures in respect of the Parliament's co-decision powers with the Council of Ministers, but also by way of its power to establish committees of inquiry, its right to be petitioned by citizens of the union, the right to appoint an independent ombudsman to intervene in matters relating to Parliament, and the power to request the Commission to make legislative proposals. These are the extended powers for the European Parliament laid down in the Maastricht treaty.
  4.30 pm
  Where is the legality of this treaty, and its ratification, in circumstances in which the extension of these powers impacts clearly upon the agreement attached to the social protocol? In the social protocol, the Twelve agree that the 11 may go ahead and make laws, involving the European Parliament, that will apply only to the 11 countries.
  If amendment No. 27 is passed and social protocol is not included in United Kingdom legislation, and if, as the Foreign Secretary has stated, that does not create a problem, where precisely will it be justiciable? It will be part of a treaty. Either it will be part of the Maastricht treaty, or it is an independent, free-standing treaty. Would the Attorney-General care to tell us where it will be justiciable?
  Can the Attorney-General tell the Committee what will happen if a member of the public, in this country or elsewhere in the European Communities, decides to take the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice for being in breach of the overall laws that apply to the European Communities? Has anybody inside the Government sought the opinion of the European Court of Justice or any of its justices, with regard to the rather novel and surprising view that the Government have taken?
  I should like now to put to the Attorney-General a question that he may be least qualified to answer but in respect of which he might care to tug on the coat tails of his right hon. Friend the Member for Watford, the Minister of State. What will happen to the elaborately stitched-together political package represented by the Maastricht treaty now that we are presented with this amazing new legal revelation?
  698
  We cannot ignore the politics of the Maastricht treaty. If the United Kingdom alone is to say that it does not have to ratify the social protocol, as its purpose can be achieved by some sleight of hand, where precisely is the package itself placed? After all, the Minister of State, during the debate on 20 January, made much of that very point.
  I should like to ask the Attorney-General what the implications are for title I of the treaty and for the legal advice—the advice that title I need not be included in the United Kingdom legislation, because it is redundant and, indeed, dangerous—that we received from the Foreign Office at that time. Can Members of Parliament, can the country, rely on any legal opinion that has been produced up to now? Is the Attorney-General satisfied that it stands four-square?
  The answers to the questions that I have just put to the Attorney-General might have been self-evident had the Committee been paid the courtesy of being allowed to see the document that the Attorney-General presented to the Cabinet—if it was ever presented to the Cabinet at all. These are questions to which answers are demanded, inside and outside the House. They need to be answered before the House of Commons can proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be helpful if the Attorney-General were to respond now to the remarks and very pointed questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson): is it not true that, as we are in Committee, the Attorney-General is able to speak again? Speaking now will not prevent him from replying later to further points raised in the debate.
  I want to seek your advice, Mr. Morris. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said, we are at a great disadvantage because we have not seen the legal advice given to the Minister of State, or the legal advice on which the Foreign Secretary based his opinions—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I take only one point of order at a time. His first question was whether it would be in order for the Attorney-General to speak next. It is for hon. Members to rise in their places if they wish to speak. I look around and I try to keep a balance. It is a matter for individual Members.
  Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. It may be that, when the Attorney-General speaks, everything that he says will be clear and non-controversial. On the other hand, he may leave some questions unanswered. If so, hon. Members may wish to participate further in the debate. I presume that the Government's business managers, in seeking the closure, will take into account the fact that, if the Attorney-General does not speak now, a significant number of right hon. and hon. Members may want to contribute later.
  The Chairman: I cannot speak for the Government's business managers.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I want to put a few important and significant questions to the Attorney-General. There is no doubt that we owe you, Mr. Morris, a great debt for enabling us to debate an issue that is extremely important for democracy and for the way we handle these matters.
  What the Foreign Secretary said in his statement did not come as a surprise to many of us who have been following the proceedings with great care. He made two

  699
  specific points. First, he said that, even if we voted in favour of amendment No. 27, that would not require the United Kingdom to apply the social chapter. That was not news to us. We had made that point time and again while Cabinet and other Ministers said quite the opposite on television and in newspapers.
  As this is an important issue, no doubt the Attorney-General is aware that I appeared on two television programmes and offered £2,000 to anyone in Britain who could substantiate the views of Cabinet Ministers. One of the most worrying factors of this business is that Ministers, who we expect to maintain the integrity and standards of life in Britain, have time and again deliberately spoken a pack of nonsense on television and in the newspapers, in the full knowledge that it was nonsense. We knew, simply by reading the amendment, that what they said could not happen.
  The second point raised by the Foreign Secetary was the complicated question of whether or not we could ratify the treaty. The basic issue of whether the social chapter would apply to Britain is obvious to any person who could pass the 11-plus. I hope that the Attorney-General will tell us that, as a result of such unfortunate occurrences, Ministers will make a special endeavour to tell the truth. I do not say that lightly; I have been a Member of Parliament for 28 years.
  Many of the problems relating to European affairs, and much of the misunderstanding and party division, could be overcome if on basic issues we had the standard of integrity to which we are entitled. Of course, I am not referring to issues of judgment, which obviously divide hon. Members.
  Mr. Winnick: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is unfortunate that the Attorney-General has chosen not to respond immediately. Was not the initial advice given by the Minister of State just a try-on because the Government were terrified that they would lose the vote on amendment No. 27? They were prepared to use any pressure, especially on Liberal Democrat Members it would not have worked on Labour Members—to avoid that.
  Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, after listening to the Minister, that he would reflect carefully on the possibility that accepting amendment No. 27 would mean that the treaty could not be ratified? It is clear that the advice given to the House was misleading, with the intention of putting pressure on the Liberal Democrats.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not want to comment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has thought about that aspect very carefully, because he has attended these debates with amazing regularity—and I respect him for that. It is possible that his observations are true. On the complex issue of ratification, I can only tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that, when I was leaving this Chamber after the speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, a senior and respected Member on these Benches who has held high office in the Conservative party—and whom all of us know and greatly respect—replied, when I asked for his view, "It's a load of codswallop." And that was from someone who is enthusiastic about the Community.
  700
  We must try to establish why the opinion in question was given in the way it was. There is an urgent need for further clarification of the statement. I want answers to three specific questions. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a clear and helpful statement to the House indicating that, on further reflection, the Government now consider—in the light of the Law Officers' comment—that amendment No. 27 would not have the result either of obliging the United Kingdom to implement the social chapter or of preventing the Government from ratifying the treaty. As the protocol did not oblige the United Kingdom to do anything, it seemed that the inclusion or exclusion of the protocol had no great relevance.
  However, it has now emerged in a letter that I received from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary only a few minutes before this debate that, astonishingly, even if the Committee votes for amendment No. 27 and takes the protocol out of British law, the protocol will nevertheless be in the treaty that the Government sign. Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General aware of any precedent or occasion in the history of the Houses of Parliament when the Government signed a treaty when Parliament had specifically voted that one part of it should be taken out? In my 28 years in the House I have never known an occasion when the Government have said, "We are going to sign a treaty with that part in it," when that part was something that Parliament had decided to exclude.
  Mr. Marlow: The Government will probably say that is precisely what they intend to do. They might be entitled to do that, but politically and constitutionally such action would be a massive abuse of the House.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is the abuse of the House that upsets me. All right hon. and hon. Members—including the few here who are greatly in favour of the EEC—know the score. They know that what we do does not matter at all. What offends me most is that the Government were going along with the pretence. We were not to have a referendum and the people were not to decide—instead, all the clever, talented, able, thoughtful and compassionate Members of Parliament were to decide for them. We were supposed to do that with great distinction—by attending debates and thinking carefully about every line of every amendment and every clause.
  The Government, along with others, tried to give the impression that that was the score—that Members of Parliament would decide—but the first time right hon. and hon. Members decided to chuck out part of the treaty, they suddenly found that was not to be the case. Senior Members of Parliament have openly stated that our views on the protocol are utterly irrelevant. It is unfortunate that the Government should try to give the impression that our views counted.
  Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman at least exclude from his criticisms and from the suggestion that we do not care about the procedures on the social protocol my right hon. and hon. Friends who have supported ratification? It goes to the heart of our criticism of the Government's position that they have in effect deprived not only the Committee but the European Community of effective ratification by seeking to withdraw this matter from our attention.
  4.45 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I have read legal opinions which make that view clear. I am not competent to make a judgment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied that issue carefully and expresses that view after proper consideration. I hope that it will receive the attention that it merits. Even if the legal opinion obtained is correct, and even if the Government are legally off their heads and doing something hopelessly illegal, I hope that it will be remembered that the Liberal party's real strength lies in the times when it fought for people's rights—when it said that people counted.
  The same can be said of the Labour party. I used to see Labour supporters in Glasgow marching down the streets, fighting for the rights of people and saying, "We will not allow people's rights to be taken away." Now, we are part of a gigantic conspiracy in which we are taking away people's rights and trying to fool them by saying that clever Members of Parliament will decide.
  Mr. Quentin Davies indicated dissent.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend smiles and shakes his head, but he knows that that is the case. He heard my right hon. Friend the Minister say that. He knows that it was a load of codswallop, aimed at trying to give the impression that clever people were doing something that they had no power to do.
  When has that happened before? If the protocol is in the treaty but not in European law, will the Government be empowered to make contributions in respect of the one twelfth share of administrative expenses required by the protocol? In answering questions after his statement, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated clearly that that would be done from the Consolidated Fund under the powers of the treaty of Rome. My understanding is that the treaty of Rome gives authority for payments to be made only if they are Community obligations.
  As the agreement to which the protocol relates is one of 11 member states only, there is no way in which payments can be regarded as a Community obligation. That is why the section of the protocol stating that Britain will pay a one-twelfth share was required. If I am not right, why on earth is it in the protocol that Britain will pay a one twelfth share of administrative costs?
  No doubt one of my right hon. or hon. Friends who is a Euro-enthusiast will say, "There's not much money in it at all. The EC spends £250 million on dumping or destroying food, so what does it matter? It is only a small point." In fact, it is a terribly important legal point, and financially it might turn out to be substantial. A large section of Commission officers will no doubt be concerned with the social chapter. There will obviously be many conferences and seminars to which friends and EC enthusiasts will be invited. They will have a great time and stay in expensive hotels. That will all cost money. They will want to initiate studies and inquiries which will also cost a good deal of money. They will want to employ some of the most expensive people to undertake those inquiries.
  Many of the organisations in the United Kingdom which speak enthusiastically about every aspect of the EC are making a fortune out of undertaking inquiries and studies for the EC. It would help our democracy if as well as declaring political contributions every trade association —including the big ones in high buildings—had to declare
  702
  in their annual reports how much money they receive from the EC for undertaking studies, inquiries and commissions. Whether it is a small or large amount, the key question is why it was included in the protocol that Britain would pay a one-twelfth share of the social chapter. There must have been a reason. If we are to chuck that out of United Kingdom law, on what basis can we make those payments?
  Mr. Skinner: This has just crossed my mind—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me his view on it. As it seems that we are not to be involved—although we are not sure yet—in one twelfth of the issue, what will happen to British MEPs? Should they be paid the same as the other MEPs, in view of the fact that they will not be involved in as much work as those of other countries? I throw that out as a possibility. I know that they could make the money up by fact-finding tours, gravy trains and junkets or whatever, but someone might argue that they cannot get as much.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman, whom I much respect, is introducing some of the EEC arguments that I am sure would be relevant to this debate. I appreciate his point. If I had the power, I would feel the same way. I find it strange that British MEPs are supporting and voting for a social chapter that the Government say is terrible. I read the other day that the Conservative party is to allow some of the cushy parts of Conservative Central Office to be used by MEPs who are deliberately undermining Government policy by supporting the social chapter and its application in Britain. That, however, is a separate issue.
  Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend has rightly said, there is the question of paying towards the administrative costs, but the protocol also says that the institutions of the Community can be used. When we are talking about administrative costs, are they part of the administrative costs of those institutions, or is it intended that those institutions should be used without being costed? If it is not intended that they should be used without being costed, how can one be taken from the other?
  If the House votes for amendment No. 27, will it not be saying in effect that the institutions of the Community should not be used for the purpose of the social protocol? Would it not benefit the United Kingdom if that were the case?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: We shall know in time whether the amount will simply be added to the EC budget, or whether there will be a separate fund, with any expenses being met from moneys relating to other EC decisions. However, whether the amount for the administrative costs can be quantified, or whether we shall simply have to pay a lump sum within the budget, we need a straight answer to one crucial question. On what authority will we pay that amount if it is not a Community obligation, which it is not —it is an agreement between the 11—and if Britain has not passed the protocol requiring us to pay our share of one twelfth?
  Perhaps the Attorney-General is going to produce a smart answer. Perhaps he is going to say, "Don't worry; the obligation to pay is still there." Why, then, was it put in the protocol? If it is not needed—if it is just one of those petty cash slips which have to be signed—what was the point of including it? That is an important question.
  Mr. Skinner: It has just crossed my mind that British Members of Parliament are allowed to go to Brussels once a year, paid for by the taxpayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Strasbourg."] Strasbourg, is it? I have never been, but I know one or two hon. Members have already taken up the option. Would it be in order for Members of Parliament to go trotting off to Strasbourg to discuss the social chapter that Britain has not accepted? Or would that be ultra vires? Would they have to pay the money back? I foresee complications.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to go to Strasbourg—or, indeed, Brussels—at the taxpayer's expense. He can travel first class if he wants, and stay at a top-class hotel, for any purpose. It is almost like the Taylor plan for agriculture, under which farmers would be given a cheque and told that they could do whatever they liked. It would save us a great deal of money if we offered every farmer a cheque for £127,000 on 1 January, to be presented at village halls. For the avoidance of doubt, let me tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that he can travel to Brussels or Strasbourg at any time, summer or winter. He can travel first class and he need not do anything at all.
  Mr. Peter Luff: And the longer he stays, the better.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: That is unfair. This is a serious issue: we are talking about people's money. My hon. Friend should be ashamed of himself if he thinks that this is funny. He should consider the tragedy of poor people today, of all the things that Britain needs and of the £250 million that is spent every week on dumping, destroying and storing foodstuffs. I feel terrible when I encounter the problems of the homeless.
  The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Morris. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) put me off. It is not right to treat these issues as laughing matters; they are deadly serious, and important to the people of Britain.
  Finally, I should like specific advice about the issue of urgency. Like every other hon. Member, Mr. Morris, I appreciate your decision to allow us to discuss the matter today, rather than later. It was made clear—or appeared to be made clear—that what the Foreign Secretary said did not relate only to amendment No. 27; in his answers to questions, he plainly stated that it also related to the Committee of the Regions. Will the Attorney-General specify the areas of decision making, apart from amendment No. 27, to which we must pay the same attention?
  That is important, because we shall shortly have to vote on the amendment relating to the Committee of the Regions. The Foreign Secretary has told us to treat the Committee of the Regions in the same way as amendment No. 27. We want to know why we should treat it in the same way; we also want to know which areas of decision making should lead us to say, "There is no need to bother about this amendment, because it will have no effect on ratification."
  I may be wrong, but I have a horrible feeling that what was said about amendment No. 27 might apply to everything, and that the Government could say, "We are going to ratify the treaty, come what may." I have a
  704
  horrible feeling—perhaps some of the lawyers will confirm it—that that applies not just to amendment No. 27 and the Committee of the Regions, the two matters on which the Government appear likely to be defeated, but that wider considerations may be involved. It would be unthinkable for the Committee to proceed to a vote without clarification of the issue. I accept that the Foreign Secretary's remarks appear to be correct in relation to the principal amendment that we may have to consider, but we must think carefully about what the issues really are.
  I am glad to have been called early to ask my three specific questions. Let me tell the Attorney-General in all sincerity that he is a man whom we respect: he is one of the decent, straight guys. I do not think that I have ever heard him make one of those clever political remarks which attempt to distort figures or turn the facts on their heads. He must be well aware that something very nasty has happened on this occasion.
  We know that the Attorney-General's views will not be published. I am sorry about that, as I am sure that they would be interesting and clearly expressed. We also know that the alleged legal opinions given to the Minister of State will not be published. That is unfortunate, but. I think that the Minister will be aware that something nasty has happened in Parliament—something that is not consistent with the standards of integrity that many of us, irrespective of our views, expect of a Conservative Government.
  The right way for the Minister to proceed—I am sure that he will do so because he is a straight guy—is not to try to make any "bashing" points, saying that Labour is silly or that the Liberals are worse, but to answer specific questions fairly and precisely, so that we know the facts. That is the way to make progress in the European debate —by telling people the truth, rather than trying to distort the issues. The powers of the House of Commons, which some people consider important, should be clarified and not confused by what appear to be political purposes.
  Mr. Maclennan: The House is indebted to you for your decision, Mr. Morris. It has enabled the debate to take place.
  I say at the outset that it is a matter for regret that the Attorney-General has not tabled the advice on which the Government base their construction of amendment No.27. Is it desirable for the opinions of legal advisers to the Foreign Office—on which the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, based his earlier and entirely contradictory advice—not to be made public? Admittedly, it is not common practice to publish the advice of legal advisers to Departments of state—although, interestingly, they are a source of public international law. After the passage of time, they are cited in courts as indicative of the legal position of the time. The Committee would be assisted by the publication of earlier advice as well as that of the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman think it not only suspicious but undesirable, and to some extent unparliamentary, for the Attorney-General not to seek to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), and tell us directly what that advice was and whether it was parallel with the advice that he gave the Prime Minister?

  705
  His failure to do so and the difficulties in which that places hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is unparliamentary and wrong. We hope that the Chair will take notice of that when a closure is moved, so that some of us may speak again if we have spoken before the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Maclennan: I regret that the Attorney-General did not publish his advice and that he did not place it in the Library before the beginning of today's debate. It is unsatisfactory that the debate should proceed on the basis of the Foreign Secretary's interpretation of that advice and that many hon. Members may speak before the Attorney-General chooses to intervene to explain his position, which presumably is that on which the Government rest their case. As he has not chosen to do so, it is best if I repeat the questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "We want answers."] I want specific answers to specific questions, and that is why I am speaking.
  5 pm
  My right hon. Friend questioned the Prime Minister on the basis of advice that he sought and was given by Mr. Anthony Lester QC, a distinguished authority on international public law and European law, who has taken the view that, if the social protocol is to be given international effect—as a treaty to which this country has subscribed as a high contracting party—it must be ratified by the proper procedures of our constitution. That is explicit in article R of the Maastricht treaty and is a necessary implication of the language in section 6(2) of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, which introduced a provision to limit the powers of the Executive in this country—the Crown—to ratify any treaty, including
  "any international agreement and any protocol or annexe to a treaty."
  Section 6(1) provides that any increase in the powers of the European Assembly, such as a treaty, cannot be ratified unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament. The Foreign Secretary did not deal with that issue when he made his famous statement.
  Mr. Marlow: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, and 1 read about Mr. Lester's advice in the newspapers. How does the hon. Gentleman react to clause 1(2) of the Bill, which states:
  "For the purposes of section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (approval of treaties increasing Parliament's powers) the Treaty on European union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992 is approved"?
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall deal with that, but it is best if I do so in a logical order.
  From reading section 6(1) and (2) of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, it is clear that the protocol requires explicit enactment or approval of the House, since the protocol and the annex to it enlarge the power of the European Parliament. It follows that we cannot accept, as an adequate expression of the law, the Foreign Secretary's statement that it would be desirable, but not strictly necessary, to ratify the social protocol by the approval of the House.
  706
  The Foreign Secretary seemed to focus on the incorporation of the protocol into our domestic law, but has the protocol been properly ratified as a treaty to which we have signed our names? That question affects not only our domestic law, but whether the social protocol will come into effect. Likewise, that treaty is required to be approved by the procedures of section 6(1) and (2) of the 1978 Act. If it has not been so approved by the House, the country will have failed to ratify the treaty and the protocol will lack effectiveness. The treaty will fail for lack of ratification.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have followed the hon. Gentleman as well as I am able; I am non-legally minded. May I ask him one simple question? Since to ordinary men and women the situation is obtuse and seems to show that all sorts of decisions are being taken without any elected Member being fully aware of the implications, would it not be much simpler if the Attorney-General told us now exactly what he has advised the Government, so that we can proceed with a much more informed debate?
  Mr. Maclennan: I realise that the hon. Lady would prefer to hear the Attorney-General rather than listen to me.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Never.
  Mr. Maclennan: I have already made plain my view that it would have been preferable for the Attorney-General to speak, but he has not done so and I must therefore continue with my questions to him. I hope that the hon. Lady shares an interest in the questions and the answers that we shall get.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I should like to hear the answers.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady must possess herself in patience, as I am trying to do.
  The Attorney-General must say how he seeks to distinguish between the necessary requirements of ratification for the Maastricht treaty and for the social protocol. Why is he prepared to tell the House and the Government that it is necessary for the House to approve specified parts of the treaty in clause 1(1) and (2) of the Bill, but that it is not necessary—although it would be desirable for reasons of incorporation—to enact the social protocol?
  Mr. Bryan Gould: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he was right, but I do not think that he has a good case. I believe that the provisions of clause 1(2) are conclusive. Does he accept that, if he is to prove his argument, he will have to extend it not merely to the social protocol but to titles I, V, VI and VII and to every other part of the treaty that is not incorporated into domestic law by virtue of the Bill?
  Mr. Maclennan: I hope that I shall deal with that aspect to the hon. Member's satisfaction before I conclude. It also relates to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
  I suggest to the Government that it is important to ensure that we enact the social protocol properly, to enable it to come into effect, even if it is merely to achieve the Government's objective of keeping Britain out of the

  707
  operation of that protocol—although that may seem paradoxical. If the agreement is to have effect, we must enact it according to our procedures.
  A non-legal argument is that United Kingdom electors have a substantial interest in the manner in which the European Parliament exercises the increased powers provided by the social protocol. On those grounds, we are entitled to some say in the matter—and not only on grounds of legal necessity.
  As I understand it, the hon. Member for Northampton, North was saying that clause 1(2) would approve the entire treaty for the purposes of the 1978 Act, including the social protocol, that, since amendment No. 27 relates to clause 1(1) the House will be enacting the social protocol as required and that, in effect, those who drafted amendment No. 27—the official Opposition—failed to recognise that it might have been better to amend clause 1(2) to achieve the total deletion of the social protocol. There is a clear answer to the point. Clause 1(2) refers only to the treaty and not to the protocol. The social protocol, unlike other protocols to the treaty, expressly states:
  "this Protocol and the said Agreement are without prejudice to the provision of the Treaty.
  That emphasises its independent character as an international agreement for the purposes of section 6 of the 1978 Act. It must therefore be separately and explicitly approved by the House.
  Clause 1(1), in defining the Community treaties in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, refers to
  "Titles II, III, and IV of the Treaty on European Union … together with the other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those Titles, and the Protocols adopted at Maastricht … and annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community."
  The use of the word "and" is important to emphasise, because it shows that, for the purposes of clause 1(1), the protocols are required as additional to the treaty rather than being an integral part of it.
  The reference in clause 1(2) to the treaty of European union must be construed in the light of the provisions of the Bill as a whole, including clause 1(1). Even without amendment No. 27, there is an obvious difference between the reference to the treaty and the protocol in clause 1(1) and the reference to the treaty alone in clause 1(2). As Mr. Anthony Lester put it in his advice to us, clause 1(1) refers to bacon and eggs; clause 1(2) refers to bacon.
  If amendment No. 27 is passed, the fact that clause 1(1) will deliberately exclude the social protocol will make it even more difficult to argue that the reference to the treaty in clause 1(2) is to be construed to include the social protocol.
  As I understand the Government's approach, it involves inserting in clause 1(2) after the reference to the treaty the words
  "and the Protocols adopted at Maastricht on that date and annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community."
  It is our legal view that unless those words are added by amendment, it will leave great uncertainty about whether Britain has validly ratified the social protocol, and hence whether the protocol can lawfully take effect.
  I put it to the Attorney-General that that view is a weighty one and if it remains unanswered—it has not been answered so far in the exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and the Prime Minister—it will be open to others to seek judicial review and
  708
  clarification in the European Court of Justice. It is beholden upon the Government to avoid that uncertainty by ensuring that there is no doubt that Britain has properly ratified the social protocol if it wishes to avoid the inevitable political uncertainties that will flow from pursuance of that legal action in our courts or the courts of Brussels.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: As a non-lawyer, I have followed with care today's debate and the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
  It has always been clear to me that the Bill is designed not to ratify the Maastricht treaty but to bring into force in United Kingdom domestic law those aspects of the treaty agreed at Maastricht that require such legal implementation. The treaty has therefore always embodied two categories of measure—those that traditionally it has been the right of the Executive, using the prerogative powers of the Crown, to decide on behalf of the nation, and those that have required legislative embodiment in the corpus of our domestic law.
  Our debates have covered both categories of measure. The Government have rightly decided that the Committee should be given an opportunity to debate matters that essentially have been of an intergovernmental nature, such as co-operation on foreign policy, even though, strictly speaking, it was not necessary to debate or vote on them before the Government could ratify the treaty.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, therefore, that it would not be appropriate for the Committee to debate and subsequently vote on the question whether the United Kingdom should be bound by the social chapter?
  Mr. Lidington: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I made no such assertion. The Committee has every right to express a view to the Government on matters that require amendment to our domestic law and on matters for which the Government are using prerogative powers. I would oppose the Committee declaring itself in favour of the social chapter by some amendment other than amendment No. 27, but if it did so, the Government would have to take account of that view.
  Having listened to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last week and having read the Official Report and subsequent accounts published outside the Committee, I asked myself three questions. The first was whether amendment No. 27 would embody the social chapter in British law and bind Britain by the obligations that the other 11 voluntarily undertook. I am clear in my own mind—I believe that this view is generally accepted —that amendment No. 27, if passed, would not have that effect.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is traversing a matter of some legal interest, and is asserting that he understands it. No doubt I am not alone in thinking that the confusion that has been generated would only be compounded by his remarks. The social chapter says that the "High Contracting Parties ‖ herein" agree. The 12 member states, including the United Kingdom, are parties to the inclusion of the social chapter in the treaty. It must therefore follow that it is part of the treaty. Any attempt

  709
  to exclude it would automatically go outside the treaty, and what my hon. Friend has said would conflict with the provisions of clause 1, which says:
  "the protocols adopted at Maastricht on that date"—
  7 February 1992—
  "and annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community"
  shall be regarded as part of British domestic law. I have much difficulty in understanding how my hon. Friend can argue that the amendment could exclude Britain from the social chapter.
  Mr. Lidington: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for his remarks. He has identified the next question with which I was about to deal, but I pray in aid the Library's research paper, which was compiled and published a month before my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's statement last week. The paper makes clear the Library's view that
  "if an amendment made provision in the European Communities Act 1972 for the UK to take full part in the Protocol on social policy at a later date, then the Government would still have the legislative underpinning necessary for the ratification of the Treaty in its present form."
  I do not accept—and I do not believe that those on the Opposition Front Bench accept—that passing amendment No. 27 would compel the United Kingdom to accept the social chapter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford touched on the second question that I ask myself, which is whether the refusal of the British Parliament to pass the Bill as drafted, and our acceptance of amendment No. 27, would prevent the other 11 countries from going ahead with the social protocol, and would therefore bring down the entire edifice. That is certainly an outcome that my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Stafford and others wish devoutly to secure.
  I await with interest the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General but it seems implausible to me, as a non-lawyer, for us to argue that paragraph 1 of the protocol on social policy would cease to have any effect if the British Parliament tried to exclude it from our domestic law.
  Paragraph I is the agreement that the Community authorises the II member states who wish to use the social protocol to do so. If we were to assert that the acceptance of amendment No. 27 would make it impossible for the other 11 to proceed, the same principle would presumably have to apply to each of the other protocols which refer to groups of countries of individual countries but not the United Kingdom, to the protocol that safeguards the provision in the Irish constitution which covers the abortion law and to that which gives the Danes the right to stop Germans buying second homes in their territory.
  I stress that I speak as a non-lawyer, but it seems that amendment No. 27, in as far as it deletes paragraph 1 of the protocol on social policy, would not prevent the Government from ratifying the treaty and, through their prerogative powers, enabling such ratification to authorise the other countries to proceed within the bounds of the treaty as negotiated.
  Another question that I ask myself is whether, therefore, the amendment means anything. If the amendment does not compel Britain to accept the social
  710
  chapter and does not prevent the other 11 from proceeding, what is the point of the Government continuing to object to it?
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is comparing the amendment with the Danish protocol, which stops the Germans buying second homes. Is not one of the main differences the fact that it allows the use of Community resources and institutions? If the House says no, through amendment No. 27, would it be proper for the Government to proceed and to allow Community resources and institutions to be used among the other 11 countries?
  Mr. Lidington: The issue of Community resources is the one aspect about which I remain troubled, and I look forward to hearing what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has to say. The expenditure involved and alluded to in paragraph 2 of the protocol on social policy concerns the administrative expenses of the institutions themselves, for whose costs there is already a subvention in our membership of the Community in any case.
  Before my hon. Friend's intervention, I was wondering whether there is any reason why Conservative Members should continue to oppose amendment No. 27. I believe that there is, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) in a question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary last week: how might the courts—the British courts or the European Court of Justice—seek to interpret the legislation if amendment No. 27 were passed? The wording of the protocol, especially paragraph 2, explicitly excludes the United Kingdom from the remit of the social chapter.
  In the light of a recent judgment, the House of Lords is willing to examine Parliament's intentions, and the European Court of Justice has traditionally tried to discern the intentions of legislators before it reaches a decision. In view of those facts, it is only common sense for my colleagues who believe that the social chapter would gravely damage this country's prosperity to ensure that the British exclusion from the social chapter is made clear in any legislation.
  For that reason, I shall certainly oppose amendment No. 27, and I hope that members of my party who share my view of the social chapter will also act accordingly.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. May I consult you on an issue relating to the conduct of the Committee and, in particular, the circumstances of its conclusion on a motion to report progress? I understand that it is entirely within the Attorney-General's discretion to decide when to speak. However, some of us have difficulty in deciding whether to speak before him. Clearly, we have come prepared to comment on the opinion that he has given to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but we are not able to do so until he endorses it.
  The debate is due to finish at 10 pm, whether or not there is a closure motion. If the Attorney-General speaks towards the end of the debate and the Government move a closure motion near 10 pm, there will be little opportunity for further comment after the Attorney-General has spoken. Therefore, I submit that there will be no proper debate, as there should be in the tradition and working of the parliamentary democracy of this place.

  711
  Will you please confirm, Mr. Lofthouse, that what I have said is certainly a possibility? If so, the Attorney-General is condemned by his own silence.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman will know that if the Attorney-General attempts to catch my eye, I shall consider calling him. It is not up to the Chair to decide when the Attorney-General or any other hon. Members rise to be called.
  Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. We are grateful for your advice. There are, of course, times when a Minister is not especially welcome. However, you may not be aware that then Mr. Morris was in the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked the Attorney-General a number of pointed questions. We are at a tremendous disadvantage. I accept what you said about an hon. Member trying to catch your eye, but the Attorney-General knows that we are at a disadvantage because of the conflicting advice. He has been asked some important questions. It is extremely discourteous of the Attorney-General, who is not normally discourteous—I am not sure whether he wants praise from an Opposition Member—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have listened to the monitor earlier and I heard the Chairman of Ways and Means deal with the question, with which I shall deal again. If the Attorney-General wishes to catch my eye, he will no doubt attempt to do so. It is not for the Chair to decide when the Attorney-General wishes to speak.
  Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. You are a decent chap and a distinguished servant of the House. You know how important this debate is, so you agree, I am sure, that it will be a rum old do, as the debate is largely about what the Attorney-General is going to say, if the debate is not allowed to continue for some considerable period after he has spoken.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Whom the hon. Gentleman agrees with is not a matter for me.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. If there was any asperity in my submission a few moments ago, it was not in respect of the Chair, but in respect of the behaviour of the Government, who are accountable here. You said correctly—we all know this —that when the Attorney-General wishes to rise to catch your eye is within his initiative. However, will you cofirm —this is a point of absolute order—that if the Attorney-General chose to rise between 7 pm and 8 pm, or even a little later, the time available for subsequent speakers—this would probably rule out those who had already spoken—would be limited by the fact that the debate would continue either until 10 pm, when it would conclude automatically, or until there was a closure motion just before 10 pm? The opportunity for any hon. Member, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), to wind up the debate would therefore be limited. All I ask is that you confirm that that is the potential procedural position.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's points are all speculative. I shall repeat what I have said,
  712
  after which I shall take no further points of order on the subject. Whether or not the Attorney-General wishes to catch my eye is a matter for him.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I quote:
  "Confusion now hath made his masterpiece!"
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a number of interesting points. He said that amendment No. 27 either means something or means nothing; either it would have an effect or it would not have an effect; even if it were to mean something and to have an effect, no one knows what that meaning would be. In any event, the hon. Gentleman will support the Government. That gives some idea of the fog of obfuscation hanging over our debate.
  With the best will in the world, the Committee is not at its best when it tries to come to a conclusions on what may be a narrow technical and legal point. There is a whole host of witnesses—"a cloud of witnesses", as the old book would say, and the word "cloud" may be relevant in the context. Sir Anthony Lester has said one thing and the gentleman who writes research notes for the Library has said another. Mr. Alan Watkins, the lawyer manqué of the Observer, has written a third thing. Everyone gives us the benefit of his views. What is the correct view?
  It is important to get the matter right because there could be profound consequences if the Government proceeded incorrectly. It could take a long time to determine matters if they were put before the courts, either our own courts by way of judicial review, or before the European Court of Justice. We know from the Sunday trading legislation saga, for example, how long the learned judges of the European Court can take to reach a decision. The average time for preliminary judgments is close to 12 months. We could have a rather interesting time while we waited for the tablets to be brought down from Luxembourg.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are many legal judgments on the matter. Will he confirm that the House has already shown, by an overwhelming majority of 244, its support for the Bill? Does he also agree that the House would probably not endorse the social chapter if there were a vote on it? That is what the public want to know. We should make progress. Many factors affecting this country's interests are at stake in the period in which we continue the debate.
  Mr. Anderson: I acknowledge that this is a matter of considerable importance to our country, not least in terms of the confidence that comes from inward investment and the way in which we are perceived by our partners in the Community. Clearly that is part of the problem caused by the Government having tried to play it both ways. They have said that they want to be in, but not quite in. They give some sops to Members such as the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who is a believer in Europe, yet they give other sops to the more nationalist wing of their party. The problem is entirely of the Government's making.
  If the Government had said that they would introduce a Bill simply to enact the Maastricht treaty, there would have difficulties—certainly not from my party, because there was a clear vote in favour of that at our party conference. But the Government have not introduced a Bill to enact the Maastricht treaty. The Bill seeks to enact the deformation of the treaty, which the Conservatives have brought about by the dual opt-out. The way in which

  713
  the Government are trying to play it, being partly in and partly out, is the reason behind the legal, technical and profoundly practical and political problems we now face.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman make the point to the hon. Member for Esher that, if we had a genuinely open a free vote in Committee on the social chapter, it would also be carried?
  Mr. Anderson: That is a matter of opinion. It could well be. The nearest that the Committee has been able to come to devising an amendment that shows support for the social chapter is amendment No. 27. If the Government, for technical reasons, choose to ignore that, they do so at their peril. They display the same arrogance that they have shown over the years. It would be profoundly anti-democratic for them to ignore the view of the Committee if it were, as I believe that it would be, in support of amendment No. 27.
  What is the history of the saga? You will recall, Mr. Lofthouse, that on 20 January, the Minister of State came to the Committee with the authorised version of the Government's then view about the legal effect of agreeing to amendment No. 27. On 15 February, the Foreign Secretary came to the House with the revised standard version of what the legal effect would be. Why was there a profound and total contradiction between the two interpretations of the effect? How can two Government views be at such variance?
  Mr. Winnick: I thank my hon. Friend, who is courteous as always, for giving way. Does he agree that it is extremely frustrating that the debate is taking place now, without the Attorney-General having been involved? My hon. Friend asks questions about the conflict of the advice given to the Committee by the Minister of State with the advice given by the Foreign Secretary last Monday. We pressed the Attorney-General to come to the House, which he has done now, but he refuses to speak until the wind-up. Would it not have been a far more informative debate if the Attorney-General had spoken at the earliest opportunity after the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)? On the basis of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, we could then have debated the matter.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) pointed out, we shall not be able to do that because, once the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken, the chance of debate, except for interventions in his speech, will be slight. That is discourteous. Whatever pressure the Whips have put on the Attorney-General, it is unfortunate that he has not risen and responded to the wishes of hon. Members of all parties. I include those who are in favour of the treaty as well as those who are opposed to it.
  Mr. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly. I believe that, on reflection, the Attorney-General would probably concur that it would have been for the convenience of the Committee if, immediately following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, he had responded to the questions raised and given the Committee the benefit of his views. A debate could then have taken place in response to that speech and the platform that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had provided. Under the
  714
  procedures of the Committee and with its leave, he could then have responded to the debate as it progressed. Alas, the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), though proper, is no longer relevant because the Attorney-General has chosen, for ill reasons, not to speak.
  It is worth examining what happened between 20 January and 15 February. It is clear that the Government had adequate time to work out their response to amendment No. 27 and what the legal effect of passing it would be. After all, that amendment was tabled in the summer of 1992, and the Foreign Office legal advisers had plenty of time between then and January to examine it carefully.
  It is important to compare the weight of the opinion of the Foreign Office legal advisers with that of the Attorney-General. Those advisers are a cadre of specialist lawyers who spend their time dealing simply with matters of this nature. Those who resort to law know that it is always appropriate to go to specialist chambers for advice and to someone who is an acknowledged expert in a particular subject of learning. If one wishes to seek advice on the import of the meaning of a particular treaty or the relevance of the implementation of a particular clause relating to that treaty, who better to go to than those Foreign Office legal advisers, whose job and whose expertise relate to such matters? After all, they spend all their time looking at the construction of treaties.
  Mr. Budgen: Before Foreign Office lawyers give their advice to Ministers debating a treaty and a Bill such as this, would it not be their practice to give a copy of that advice to Ministers and the Attorney-General, in the knowledge that the Attorney-General might be called to the House and required to justify the opinion, which was, essentially, the opinion of those lawyers?
  Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. In the generality of cases, Foreign Office legal advisers, because of their expertise, would not need to go outside for advice. However, given the certainty that this subject would be debated in Committee and its profound implications, it is likely that the advice that they tendered, or a draft form of it, would have been conveyed to the Attorney-General for concurrence. My first question, therefore, is whether, between May 1992, when amendment No. 27 was tabled, and 20 January, when the Minister of State made his statement, Foreign Office legal advisers consulted the Attorney-General. If so, did he concur with the opinion that they then gave?
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he seems to be making a subversive argument. I am not a lawyer, but the law of our country is based on the fact that specialist lawyers, however expert, may argue their case as well as they can, but, at the end of the day, it is subject to the opinion of people who may not be specialists in that point of law but who, by reason of their office—whether they be in the Court of Appeal, a judge or the Attorney-General—make the appropriate decision. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that, if one has a sufficiently "expert" expert, no other authority is required.
  Mr. Anderson: I was not putting the Attorney-General in the role of a judge of appeal or whatever. The expertise

  715
  in this subject is more likely to be found among Foreign Office legal advisers than in the office of the Attorney-General. He has a generality of expertise and is not necessarily expert in this matter. With all respect to the Attorney-General, the fact that the strongly held view of Foreign Office legal advisers, decided upon after a long period of reflection and conveyed to the Committee on 20 January, was then undermined so quickly raises important questions.
  The traditional role of the Attorney-General is to act as someone who is part in and part out of the Government. Although he is elected, he is there to give independent advice to the Government. It is a bad thing for the country if the impression is given, rightly or wrongly, that the Attorney-General has entered into a partisan role. He does not wear a partisan hat when he makes a great many decisions, and part of the strength, historically, of the office of the Attorney-General has been that, to some extent, it is above the party fray.
  The speed with which the opinion offered on 20 January was changed raises questions. One hon. Member referred to the smell surounding this issue. I would not use that argument, because I have great respect for the Attorney-General, but he must accept that the issue raises questions that must be answered. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give those answers when he speaks. For example, was the Attorney-General consulted prior to 20 January and did he concur with the opinion that was delivered to the Minister of State?
  My next question, which follows chronologically, is in what circumstances was the question that had been answered so confidently by the Minister of State referred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's office for a further opinion? Further, did he go outside his office to seek opinion or did he do so in-house, from the lawyers around him? They are probably not particularly expert in this matter. It is important for the health of our government that the lid is taken off these matters and that they are clarified.
  I have already mentioned the problem that faces the Committee. We are all experts in our own way, but many in the Committee are not lawyers. We are being invited to address a profound legal question. For that reason, I raised the serious point—I was not seeking to be humerous —about the difference beteween our proceedings and those of a Standing Committee. When such a matter arises before a Standing Committee, one has the opportunity to call senior lawyers who can give the Committee the benefit of their views. We might even call Mr. Alan Watkins, who holds strong views on this matter. At the moment, we are unprepared when we give the Committee the benefit of our views. We can only probe the chronology of events in respect of the Attorney-General.
  I have posed the key questions that I wished to raise, but there is another question, in part a legal one, but with practical implications, that needs to be considered. It is possible that the Government could have ratified many titles in the Bill through the Executive process arid the royal prerogative. Whatever the constitutional experts may say about the technical and legal possibility of doing that, I believe that the political implications of such an act should be paramount. The Government should never lightly ignore the expressed views of Parliament.
  Leaving aside what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said about the construction of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, and the
  716
  way in which the Government are constrained by statute in respect of the protocol, even if it had technically and legally been open to them to use the royal prerogative in this case, they would have been wrong to do so, given the immense political implications of this matter. It would be an arrogant Government who ignored the clearly expressed views of Parliament.
  I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said. It would not only have been wrong, practically, to ignore the will of Parliament, but it would fly in the face of the whole argument that the Prime Minister has used, rightly in my view, against a referendum relating to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has relied on parliamentary sovereignty. The final decision must rest with the House. One cannot clasp the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty to one's chest as it suits, and reject it when it does not, as in this case. That is another cogent argument why the Government should listen to the voice of Parliament.
  I was considering the way in which the law can be brought into disrepute when those who cannot find a convenient opinion look for another one elsewhere that may be a little more convenient. In doing so I was reminded of a jingle in relation to that great Welshman and Liberal, Lloyd-George—I hope that it will not be said of the Government:
  "Count not my legal opinion as fine
  I meant it as I meant it at the time."
  Mr. Cash: We have now reached a stage in the Lewis Carroll saga when we should recall "Through the Looking Glass", when Humpty Dumpty spoke of words meaning what he chose them to mean:
  "'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'"
  That summarises our position. There are conflicting opinions and words, but the whip, the bludgeon, the heavy instrument is driving the Bill through, irrespective of its impact on people, or their opinions or wishes. Therefore, to paraphrase Lewis Carroll, we are now in a position where opinions appear to mean what we or others choose them to mean, and the question is, when is Maastricht to be passed—that is all.
  We have now moved beyond the purely technical questions on the social chapter, and the issue before the Committee is much greater. That is why it is the subject of the motion. The relationship between hon. Members and Parliament is rapidly moving into a black hole. If amendment No. 27 had been passed—or if it is passed in future—that will amount to Parliament instructing the Executive that the provision of the social chapter must be excluded from the treaty.
  If that were done, irrespective of the argument about whether one may or may not ratify a treaty by prerogative, we should have to ask what the position would be if Parliament's views, arguments, determinations and will were to be overridden after Parliament had decided to exclude the social chapter. If that happened, we would face a new sort of constitutional problem.
  Let us apply the same criteria to any other treaty. Let us suppose that Parliament decided that it did not want a treaty and passed a resolution to that effect. Anyone could immediately see that overriding that decision would constitute a defiance of Parliament. We would rapidly return to a position not far from that of James II, when he turned to the people of this country and said that he had

  717
  got the loot from Louis XIV and did not need Parliament, so Parliament could get lost. He said that he would suspend or dispense with the law, according to his prerogative. I am not sure whether the Government have realised the dangerous hole in their flank that they have opened up by their handling of the short-term issue of the social chapter.
  At the beginning of our procedings on the Bill, I raised the issue of the Ponsonby rule. I wanted to elicit from the Minister of State the exact relationship between the prerogative and Parliament in relation to the Bill. I did so because, as I said then, only certain titles of the treaty—titles II, III and IV—together with the other provisions of the treaty so far as they relate to those titles, and all the protocols adopted at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, would be incorporated in the consolidated treaty arrangements of the European Community legislation. The Bill was a proposed addition to that.
  Therefore, I wanted to know the position in respect of those other provisions—the so-called invisible and illusory pillars that the Government have erected through their prerogative. I wanted to know the position under the Ponsonby rule if, within 21 days of the treaty and the protocols being laid before the House, we legislated and then discovered that some parts of the provisions that were being dealt with by prerogative required express parliamentary approval.
  The argument cuts both ways. If Parliament were to pass an amendment that overrode the use of prerogative, Parliament's views would not only have to be accepted, but would be imposed on the Executive by Parliament. A Government who decided to take such a step would be unwise. If amendment No. 27 excluding the social chapter were passed, we would be in exactly the same position as we are in respect of the prerogative provisions contained in the so-called pillars. There is a profound difference between the provisions presently contained in clause 1(1) (k) of the Bill and the position towards which we are moving. I do not believe that the Government have entirely understood how dangerous the position has become.
  That problem has now been compounded by the competing legal opinions. As has been rightly said, it hardly matters which opinion is chosen. Some might wish to defer to the opinion of the Attorney-General and any external advisers that he had chosen. Others—I make no secret of the fact that I am included in the group—have been working out how best to address such important matters, and have been obtaining opinions and seeking advice from external sources.
  About two or three weks ago in Committee—before the latest saga—I said that I had been involved in matters relating to the Constitution Act 1982, when I advised Quebec. That issue eventually made its way to the Supreme Court in Canada, and the views that some of us —myself included—had proposed were accepted by the Supreme Court. The Foreign Office advice that had been relied upon during the proceedings was found wanting. I could give many other such examples.
  It is by no means unusual to discover that Foreign Office legal advice is wrong. We now have the authority of no less a person than the Foreign Secretary. He had to say that the advice was wrong. On 15 February, he said:
  718
  "I regret that the legal advice then given to the House was not correct … we intend to press forward with the Bill so that we can ratify the treaty which I, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer negotiated at Maastricht, and which won an overwhelming majority on Second Reading in this House." —[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol 219, c.28.]
  In the light of what I said earlier, it would be a massive defiance of the House if amendment No. 27 were passed and proceedings on the Bill continued despite the view that had been expressed by the whole Committee.
  I do not take issue with the fact that there was, in numerical terms, an overwhelming majority on Second Reading; but the Prime Minister pointed out in an interview in a newspaper article about our scuttling out of the exchange rate mechanism, for good reasons, when it got hot that, when circumstances change, one has to change with them. Of course, circumstances have changed.
  The "overwhelming" majority on Second Reading was obtained on the basis of the political landscape at that point. The circumstances have changed with the Danish referendum results, so the consideration that we should apply to amendments such as amendment No. 27 has changed.
  In a letter to The Times which appeared in that paper only on Saturday, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) seemed to know that there would be an intergovernmental conference shortly, at which amendments would be passed to the Maastricht treaty. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.
  6 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: The amendments to which I referred were to the EC treaties. They are consequential on the outcome of the Edinburgh summit. A decision was made to create a European investment fund. That requires a change to the statutes of the European investment bank, an institution which already exists. That requires a formal treaty amendment. The week before last, the European Parliament gave formal agreement for an intergovernmental conference to take place this week or next week. It is a technical change: it requires no huge fuss or constitutional chaos. I used it as an example in my letter to The Times to show that precisely the same thing could happen with the social chapter. But the amendments will be not to the Maastricht treaty but to the full EC treaties.
  Mr. Cash: The letter left some uncertainty, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the context in which he wrote it. However, it would be possible, although highly improbable, that an intergovernmental conference such as those convened at great expense at Birmingham and elsewhere would provide an opportunity to come together to resolve some of the other questions which have arisen, and dispatch the Maastricht treaty with it.
  If the 12 Governments are to convene, they might just as well recognise the point which I made to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary shortly after he made his statement. We have reached a position in which the treaty should be consigned to the dustbin of history, because the circumstances have so changed, and the likelihood that the treaty, in not only its present but its implemented form, would create turmoil throughout Europe, has grown so much that it should be dealt a final blow in a statesmanlike manner by the statesmen of Europe.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Is not the position which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) described in his intervention even worse than the one which my hon. Friend describes? My hon. Friend was describing the possibility of an amendment to the treaty of Maastricht, which has not yet been ratified. The hon. Member for Hamilton was talking about a mini-Maastricht behind our backs. The position is worse than my hon. Friend outlines to us.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) would be the first to discover something even worse than I described. I am grateful to him for showing how the appalling nature of the whole exercise has been compounded.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made a point about the administrative costs which will arise under the social chapter as it now stands. As I said in a point of order, and in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the 12 high contracting parties have agreed to the protocol on social policy. To some extent, some people have missed the wood for the trees. Certainly, 11 member states are the participants in the agreement within that protocol, but the same 12 high contracting parties which have entered into the treaty have agreed to the social protocol. They have decided that it will not apply to the United Kingdom.
  However, from the long title of the Bill and its scope, and to the provisions of clause 1, it is perfectly clear that for the treaty to have effect it must do so as it has been put together by the 12 high contracting parties throughout. The ingredients of the agreement between the 11 parties is another, but important, question. Therefore, whatever advice my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General might have received, there is a large question mark over whether the original advice should now be discounted.
  Even if we knocked out provisions of a treaty to which the 12 member states had signed up, even though any protocol contained an exclusion—for example, for the United Kingdom on economic and monetary union—they are all part and parcel of one grand but dreadful treaty. One may say that the treaty is awesome in the powers that it will transfer away from the House.
  The consequences of leaving out any one part of the treaty, if amendment No. 27 was passed, would be that the Committee had instructed the Executive not to include those provisions. Therefore, I would argue that we would immediately run into the problem of whether it was possible partially to ratify a treaty. One cannot partially ratify a treaty.
  I am not referring to the agreement between the 11 member states. I am referring to the fact that the 12 high contracting parties have agreed to the protocol. On that argument, it would wreck the treaty to pass an amendment such as amendment No. 27. Of course, I should be delighted about that. On that point alone, a large question mark remains.
  There is also an issue of administrative costs. If we excluded the social protocol by amendment No. 27, presumably the administrative costs would fall to be paid by virtue of the prerogative. According to the Government, that is the only basis upon which they would then be in a position to proceed. I should like to have the following question answered: would the Public Accounts
  720
  Committee be able to inquire into the manner in which the administrative costs were levied? Would such matters be within the remit of the Select Committee on the Treasury?
  As some hon. Members have said, there are profound questions as to whether such matters would be Community obligations. If they were pushed through by prerogative alone, they would be not Community obligations but impositions on the British people. There would be a charge upon them through tax as a contribution towards the cost. The fundamental principle applying to the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom is that no such provision may be made without the full authority of Parliament. It cannot be done by prerogative.
  I spoke earlier about James II. In this instance the Executive would tell Parliament what to do, and if we passed an amendment, Parliament would be defied if the Executive went ahead with the prerogative. That touches another of the central planks of the constitutional relationship between Executive, Parliament and people, that a charge or tax may not be imposed upon the people without their consent and the approval of their Parliament.
  As I said when speaking about overriding the prerogative, only an unwise and imprudent Government would imagine that this matter is not central to the running of our affairs. In the past, some people thought that nothing much depended on that, but Pym and Hampden and others—not little Englanders but people who stood up for our citizens when they were faced with absolutism and authoritarianism—understood the principles upon which we then operated and on which we must still operate if we wish to sustain freedom of speech and the principles of free government. I wonder whether the Government appreciate the extent to which their arguments have dislodged that plank.
  The explanatory memorandum says that the Bill will have no direct financial effect in the United Kingdom. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), have spoken about administrative costs and the prerogative. There is also the issue if title I, article F3, which deals explicitly with whether it would be right to use the prerogative. That title is not included in section 1(1) (k) of the Bill. Title I, article F3 would give the Community the power to provide resources to achieve the objectives of the "Union" without any apparent reference to Parliament. I shall not labour that point as it has already been made but it is important to add it to the discussion about the administrative costs of the social chapter. The two matters are linked and are symptomatic of a deeper problem.
  Defiance of Parliament by the Executive in relation to the prerogative and the overriding of the principle of parliamentary approval to the payment of moneys representing a charge on the people are symptomatic of the draining away of the soul of Parliament. That is because the treaty represents a failure of political will to say no to the demands of Germany and France about economic and monetary union. Further, we did not refuse to accept the nostrums and the intellectual baggage that have developed over time. Circumstances changed when the Berlin wall came down, and there were changes when we had to leave the exchange rate mechanism.
  The European framework that is being designed has a corrosive effect upon our parliamentary system. Policies, including the social chapter and the issue of whether we

  721
  should be excluded from it, are being dictated by Governments, influences and circumstances which are no longer as valid as they seemed to be when the whole business of the European Community, which as a whole I support, was being devised in the early 1950s.
  6.15 pm
  "German comments", published in July last year contained a simple reference by the editor. It is a publication by Konrad Adenauer Siftung, to which I have referred before. That reference stated:
  "Voting has become an instrument of protest. This will make governing even more difficult than it was in the past."
  That was published after the Danish referendum, and it is a chilling observation.
  A similar problem is arising in this debate. I agree that it is difficult to govern—no one has any serious doubt about that—but the way in which it is done and the extent to which we have regard to the procedures, manners and customs of Parliament and the necessity to ensure that we do not do anything to enable the prerogative to override Parliament, whether in relation to administrative costs or an amendment, remain critical.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred briefly to another problem. I was astonished by the extent to which those of us who have taken a certain position about the treaty were smeared—I think that that is the right word—with the charge that we wanted the social chapter to be imposed upon British business. First, we never did; secondly, that is impossible; and thirdly, I understand that the smear was being put around even after the Foreign Secretary had made his statement. Some people, probably because they do not understand, have continued to say that.
  Perhaps some further retraction is required of that smear, because we never intended what was alleged, and nobody is certain about what will happen to amendment No. 27. We were criticised for something that we had not done and, with few exceptions, nobody has declared his intention. Above all, the impression was given that we were about to do something that was not even possible. The Government and the Foreign Secretary have conceded that we were right; that in itself is of no little importance for the reputation of hon. Members and is the basis upon which we approach our opposition to the treaty and the Bill.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about what is possible, and his claim that he would not support anything that was impossible. Does he go along with his supporter in another place, who said that he would be prepared to support the proposition that the moon was made of blue cheese if that would destroy the treaty of Maastricht? Would that not explain why some of us thought that my hon. Friend was prepared to vote for the amendment on the social chapter, the imposition of which might have had that effect?
  Mr. Cash: I do not always take the advice of other people, however distinguished and eminent—I make up my own mind. But my preference is for Shropshire cheese rather than cheese that comes from the moon. My hon. Friend should not get too excited about what we may or may not do, because time will tell. The point is, first, that
  722
  we knew what the words meant, and secondly, that we made them clear. We explained to people why we were doing what we were doing.
  It was only because other advice was being tendered about the imposition of the social chapter, as opposed to whether it would wreck the treaty—I make a distinction between the two—that we were led to the view that we would not be imposing the social chapter on British business. The Government have now conceded that, and it is important that it should be on record. That has little to do with cheese, from the moon or from anywhere else, or even with the opinions of some of my noble and distinguished Friends in the House of Lords.
  Another issue that arises in the principles that are beginning to come out in the debate is the referendum. It is clear that, if the people were to find that the Government were ignoring Parliament and people, the case for a referendum would become unanswerable. The more that the debate continues day by day, the more complex and confused it becomes, the more the contradictions are revealed and the more the case for the referendum grows. Opposition Members are witnessing a travesty of procedure. They are watching, I have no doubt, with concern, the way in which an opinion goes one way and then another—the switching, the ducking and the weaving. One opinion is as good as another. The legal advice on which the treaty is based is now in serious doubt.
  I would go further. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to the House after the Danish vote, I expected him to say that, because of that vote, the Government would have to reconsider the matter. We heard nothing of the kind. My right hon. Friend said that we were going to press ahead, and that has been the basis on which the matter has been treated since then. I put it to him then, on the basis of what seemed to me to be clear from the treaty—nobody has ever argued with me about this—that it is a centralising treaty. Therefore, I must conclude that, when he replied that I was wrong in every particular, that reply must have been based on the same legal advice that he had received from the Foreign Office in respect of this matter as well.
  Therefore, I wonder why people should believe—not only in respect of the centralising realities of the Bill, including the concept of the central bank, subsidiarity and all that goes with it, and a whole raft of other stuff based on legal advice—that the legal advice underpinning the treaty is any more valid that that given about the social chapter. The answer is that it is not. That raises yet another question. I am glad to see him here today, but why is it that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has deigned to indulge us with his presence for the first time only today? We have repeatedly asked him to come to answer the questions that I have asked over and over again. Answer came there none—nor did the Attorney-General.
  We are dealing here not with a bilateral treaty but with a system of law, which is a legal framework. That is why questions of legal interpretation continually arise. I see my right hon. and learned Friend smiling and looking at his watch and, to go back to Lewis Carroll, he might do so before he slips down the black hole. The legal advice that lies at the heart of the treaty is wrong and imperfect. The agruments with which we are being presented cannot be evaluated against policy because there is no White Paper and no basis on which to form a judgment about the

  723
  connection between policy and the legal advice that underpins the relationship that will be created between the British people and their Eurogovernment.
  For example, in relation to the social chapter, if a matter relating to the administrative costs of the institutions of which the British people would be paying under the Government's propositions, to be implemented solely by the prerogative, were to arise, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to appear before the Treasury Select Committee, he would be no more responsible for those decisions than he would be for the entire British Budget. It would be almost a waste of his time turning up.
  He might have had some influence on the outside looking in but, for practical purposes, if the central bank provisions went ahead—that is the legal advice given by the Foreign Office, which has led to the treaty being made in line with policies that have not yet been explained—he would not have to give any answers that meant any thing to the Select Committee, because the main decisions would be taken by the unelected, unaccountable central bankers.
  The Foreign Office has also given legal advice about the European Monetary Institute in stage 2. There is no doubt that, under article 8 of the protocol, the Governor of the Bank of England would effectively be under the thumb of the monetary institute. He would not have to take advice or instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House. It would be of no value for the Select Committee on the Treasury to call him before it, because he would have nothing to say to it. He would say, "I cannot seek instructions; I cannot take instructions." Therefore, under stage 2, before we get to 1 January 1994, which is less than a year away, we shall be moving into the transitional phase. That is the basis on which advice is being given.
  6.30 pm
  We so often find that we fall back upon statements that are made as a matter of policy by Ministers. Only the other day, I heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary imply that practical considerations were more important than legal considerations. I heard him say much the same when the Danish referendum took place. To paraphrase him, he said that what the people of Denmark may think is more important than what might be contained in the treaty. I remember that pretty well. It is that approach that lies at the heart of the issue.
  It must be recognised that there is a legal framework. It is no good Ministers hiding behind the privilege of the House of Commons and hoping that there are no legal implications in what is being done. The legal advice that is being tendered is fundamental. In the past couple of months, the House of Lords made a ruling which, combined with Factortam, raises an important issue.
  As I said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary only the other day, it is open to the courts as part of the travaux preparatoires to examine what is said in parliamentary proceedings in deciding the balance of their judgment in the context of the legislators' intention. I see that the shadow Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), is nodding his head. He knows that what I say is true. He and I know also that there are difficulties for the Government.
  When it comes to interpretation, including the provisions of the social chapter, centralising or not, and legal opinions that have underpinned the basis of the policy on which the Maastricht treaty has gone through, to
  724
  be considered also are the various remarks that have been made by Ministers. The time will come when the record is read. The history of the Bill will be mulled over against the background of many speeches that may now be regarded as beyond the pale because they are made by individuals who bitterly oppose the provisions contained in the treaty. As and when history unfolds and these matters are judged against the background of what happened, as compared with what it was said would happen, it will be realised that it was the underpinning legal advice that was at fault.
  When we consider the treaty's provisions against the background of a massive transfer of power within a predetermined European policy that has drained away the will of the House of Commons and that of the Government to allow the British people to determine their own affairs within the European Community, it is clear that the umbilical cord has been broken by the sort of advice that is being presented. For example, stage 2 of the treaty would enable decisions to be taken on the basis of that advice by unelected and unaccountable persons that would be at variance with the constitutional usages and practices of the House of Commons.
  Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know that he is just about to bring his remarks to an end. I am sure that he, like the rest of us, wants to hear the Attorney-General, who I understand will speak shortly. We certainly want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer some of the questions that have been put by the hon. Gentleman as well as by other hon. Members. In the hon. Gentleman's concluding sentences, will he bear in mind the fact that these matters have little or nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the political convenience of a Government who are facing defeat on amendment No. 27?
  Mr. Cash: I am extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's last remark. Without wanting to cast aspersions on the Government's motives, I must say that political convenience is frequently at the heart of major decision-making. It would, of course, be unfair in any way to suggest, or even to think, that legal advice has been tailored to suit political convenience.
  The principle has been enunciated that we should go ahead. That is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary appears to be prepared to do, along with the rest of the Government, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Executive, or the Government, seem prepared to go ahead with the social chapter irrespective of whether the Government effectively give an instruction that that should not be done. It seems that the Government are prepared to go ahead by prerogative alone.
  If that is so, I am bound to say that the same principle could be applied to all legislation that flows from the European Communities Act 1972. The same can be said of the treaty. I am bound to concede that there is no good reason, according to our constitutional practice, why it should not go through by prerogative.
  The distinction that I am drawing—again I notice that the shadow Attorney-General is nodding in agreement—is that which lies between the ordinary prerogative treaty, which is simply laid before the House, and prerogative treaties that have the effect of incorporating rights, duties and obligations into our domestic law, which have to be

  725
  passed by way of Act of Parliament in order to have effect on the people of this country. It is crucial that that distinction is remembered.
  The issue turns not on the arcane theological argument about the ratification of treaties but on the extent to which rights, duties, obligations, functions and powers are created that have an impact on the people by virtue of enactment in the House of Commons. That is why I said at the beginning that the Government have opened up a dangerous flank. If they were to persist with the view that legislation can be taken through the House of Commons merely by prerogative, they would be saying, in effect, "We do not need Parliament."
  If that were to be the position, why should we bother with all the legislation that emanated from the European Communities Act and the treaty of Rome back in 1971–72? The answer is that there would be no need for it. That, however, is at variance with the facts, the law, custom, practice and realities. There must be passage through the House of Commons; otherwise, we shall not create obligations, duties and powers.
  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey recently made an interesting and revealing speech in the House of Lords. She said that the treaty does not impose any specific duties. This harks back to another question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I asked him about the whole question of citizenship and about the rights accorded to and the duties imposed upon the people of this country. The answer that I received was just the same as the one given by the noble Baroness.
  But what I was told does not answer the legal question that lies at the heart of my intervention in the speech of the Minister of State. The people of this country need to know what duties are being imposed upon them and what powers are being accorded to them. Otherwise, their status as citizens of the United Kingdom will be uncertain. They will not know where they are. Are they to be part British and part European, or are they to be made exclusively European? These questions of citizenship must be addressed. They arise from the legal advice that has been tendered with regard to citizenship—a matter with which the noble Baroness did not deal.
  The noble Baroness said that, in effect, this was a modest measure about which we should not get too exercised. But if we do not get exercised about the way in which we are governed, about our Parliament, about whether we are to be taxed without consent, if we do not bother ourselves about whether the executive can railroad provisions irrespective, and possibly in defiance of Parliament, we shall deserve the fate which will befall us.
  Mr. Hoon: If the judges of the European Court of Justice, in their efforts to elucidate parliamentary intention, look at the speeches of Members of Parliament, I wish them every success in their researches into the undergrowth of the contributions of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
  My recollection is that we are debating the legal and constitutional effects of amendment No. 27, which specifically excludes the protocol on social policy from United Kingdom domestic law. Originally, Opposition Members understood that amendment No. 27 would prevent the Government from ratifying the Maastricht treaty without recourse to a new intergovernmental
  726
  conference. That is what the Minister of State told the House repeatedly and perhaps not in his most careful and considered manner, but rather gleefully—not carefully relaying legal advice, but obviously revelling in what he thought was a political bombshell for the Opposition. In the following days it became clear that it was the Government who were suffering the fallout from the bombshell when they realised that they were likely to lose the vote on amendment No. 27. Only then did their legal advice appear to change.
  Last week, the Foreign Secretary's argument was that the passing of amendment No. 27 would have no effect on ratification, as ratification was a matter for the Crown. It was argued that, as the protocol on social policy had no direct effect in United Kingdom law, it would not have to be incorporated in United Kingdom legislation. Of course, that applies to any obligation under an international treaty. It is possible for the Crown to ratify without reference to Parliament. Any such international obligation would have to be put before Parliament in the form of a Bill only if the treaty concerned created obligations involving changes in United Kingdom law—changes which had to be incorporated in national legislation.
  The Foreign Secretary was not stating anything new when he said that nothing in the protocol on social policy required United Kingdom legislation and that, as amendment No. 27 would remove the protocol on social policy—it was a negative—it would not create rights in the United Kingdom.
  6.45 pm
  That is all very clear and unexceptionable, except that, until that point, it had been assumed—not least by the Minister of State—that, if amendment No. 27 were passed, it would require a new intergovernmental conference. The Minister's point was that such a conference would open up the treaty and all the carefully worked out compromises made when the treaty was signed. His threat was that that would allow other countries to change their positions and would enable other considerations to be introduced and therefore raise the question of a fundamental change in the nature of the agreement—indeed, by implication, prevent any agreement at all.
  The Government argued further that as some countries had already held referendums and thereby completed the process of ratification that their constitutions required, it would not be possible subsequently to change the terms of the treaty and the protocol without reopening the question of ratification in those countries. The Government were therefore deliberately raising the spectre of a re-run of the referendums in France and Ireland, knowing that the Opposition would be concerned about the prospect of a defeat in either of those countries allowing the Government to blame the Opposition for the collapse of the Maastricht treaty.
  That is why there was such political glee about the legal opinion which was relayed to the House. This entire constitutional and legal debate arose simply because the Opposition wanted a means whereby Parliament could vote on the social chapter. They wanted a specific vote on whether the Government's opt-out from the social chapter was or was not a matter that the House of Commons could consider.
  Surely, in a parliamentary democracy, it is appropriate that legislators should have an opportunity to debate in Committee the detail of a treaty. That, after all, is what we

  727
  have been doing. We have been considering in detail the provisions of the Maastricht treaty. However, we now understand the Government's position to be that there will be no opportunity to debate specifically whether or not the United Kingdom should adhere to the social chapter, and no opportunity to vote on that matter other than on Third Reading.
  It appears that the Government's position and the Foreign Secretary's view is that, when the House votes on Third Reading, it will, in effect, be voting on the social protocol. In a parliamentary democracy, that cannot be acceptable. It must be open to us to consider specifically what was agreed at Maastricht and to vote upon it. That is why the explanation about ratification which has been given is not satisfactory.
  Ratification means confirmation. Historically, it was not necessary—or not significant—for a treaty to be ratified. Essentially, a treaty was signed by the monarch, and ratification was no more than a formality. The significant process was the signature. In modern international law, the reverse is the case: the signature of an international treaty is, generally speaking, no more than a formality—ratification is the key process.
  The reason is that, in most parliamentary democracies, ratification follows a parliamentary process whereby some democratic approval is given to the content of an international agreement. This makes possible a democratic veto on Executive action. Thus the practice has developed in virtually every parliamentary democracy, except our own. In the United States, it is necessary to have democratic approval before ratification.
  Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is especially necessary to have democratic approval for a treaty which envisages a common defence policy and, possibly, the emergence of a common army? It is possible that, in future, people may be found guilty of treason if they do not want to fight in a Eueopean war. Therefore, the consent of people throughout the country is no small matter; it goes to the heart of whether the country consents to be governed in the way envisaged by the treaty.
  Mr. Hoon: That is right. We have a representative democracy, so it is right that those decisions should be carefully considered by the House—or, at the moment, by the Committee. That is why I have argued that the Committee should have an opportunity specifically to 'vote on whether the United Kingdom should adhere to the social protocol.
  The Government's argument has always been that because, in the Maastricht treaty negotiations, they opted out of the protocol, it is not necessary to put that before the Committee and, eventually, the House. The difficulty is that the social protocol binds the high contracting parties; it binds all 12 member states, including the United Kingdom. Even if the content of a protocol affects only one member state or fewer than the full 12 members, nevertheless it binds all 12, whatever its content. Each of the 12 member states agreed to the protocol on Denmark, which directly affects only the needs and concerns of that country. All agreed to allow the United Kingdom to opt out of economic and monetary union. Similarly, the protocol on social policy is, legally, made by the high contracting parties, which means all 12 member states, and it is necessary that all of them ratify it.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be almost fraudulent for an informal decision or agreement, outside the legal arrangements that he has described of 12 high contracting parties agreeing on a treaty, to give the Danes a special arrangement for matters which cover the whole range of the treaty? In other words, the opt-outs do not add up to a row of beans.
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray from the specific debate, but I shall resist the temptation to join him in speculation along the lines that he suggested.
  Where, in a parliamentary democracy, Parliament has specifically said that a certain provision of art international agreement should not be translated into United Kingdom law—which would be the effect of passing amendment No. 27—it would be hard to envisage how the Government could go ahead and ratify that specific provision. Yet if understood the Foreign Secretary correctly, that is what he has invited us to do. He is saying that, in effect, even if Parliament agrees to amendment No. 27 and states specifically that the protocol on social policy should not become part of the United Kingdom Bill or United Kingdom law, nevertheless the Government will still ratify because there is nothing in the protocol on social policy that requires it to be translated into British law.
  In one sense, that is a political rather than a legal point. Legally, it is possible for the Government to do that, but politically and democratically it is hard to envisage how the Government could argue against what would be the clearest signal from Parliament that they should not ratify on the basis of a provision that Parliament has specifically resisted.
  Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on his view on the supremacy of the European Court of Justice, which has a bearing on this matter? It is feasible that the Executive could ratify under the prerogative, knowing full well that various parts of the treaty make it possible, in a clash between national and Community law, for the European Court to force us to adopt this or other provisions that we have deliberately excluded. There is a very good case of that happening in, German basic law.
  Mr. Hoon: So far, I have been dealing with what consider to be the international law implications of the action that the Foreign Secretary appeared to suggest last week. I want now to deal with some of the domestic implications of passing amendment No. 27.
  Paragraph 2 of the social protocol was included at the behest of the Government's lawyers. That paragraph specifically excludes the United Kingdom from the terms of the protocol. Why was that paragraph included? Last week, the Foreign Secretary said that it was a tidying up exercise to ensure the avoidance of doubt. His lawyers had advised him which expression to use. If the Foreign Secretary was right, why was it necessary to include the paragraph in the first place? What would be the effects of its absence from the protocol?
  That paragraph could have been drafted only by the Government's lawyers. There would be no advantage in a European Commission lawyer or a lawyer from France, Germany or Italy drafting that exclusion for the United Kingdom. It must have been negotiated by the United Kingdom, having been drafted by United Kingdom lawyers. In those circumstances, why did they think it necessary?

  729
  The reason is clear, and it was alluded to in the question to which I deferred responding a few minutes ago. It is because the Government want paragraph 2 as a defence, available in the event of anyone challenging the opt-out on the social chapter before either a United Kingdom court or the European Court of Justice. They want to be able to say, "Paragraph 2 includes a specific provision excluding the United Kingdom from the operation of the social chapter."
  The Government created legal difficulties by negotiating the opt-out from the social chapter, which in effect allowed the creation of two quite separate legal systems within the European Community. They allowed for a system which would bind 11 member states, which could then produce directives under the social chapter—and eventually lead to cases before the European Court—and also for a system which would bind all 12 member states, which is the conventional legal system to which we are all accustomed.
  What the Government never explained—I hope that the Attorney-General will consider doing so—is the legal position of the European Court of Justice when dealing with directives made under the social chapter. Directives will be issued and at some stage a provision in one of them will be challenged. Eventually, the case will go to the European Court. When the court considers such a case, it will not look simply at the narrow provisions of a particular directive; it will look at the directive, the treaty and a whole wealth of decided cases, and will then reach a conclusion.
  If it is dealing with a particular interpretation of a directive made under the social chapter, will it say to the European Community "Ah, because this arises under the social protocol, the particular case binds only the 11 member states that signed the social protocol"? Can the European Court say that provision will be binding on only 11 member states? As someone trained in the legal profession in the United Kingdom, it is difficult to imagine a court saying, "This provision binds only some member states and not others."
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoon: I want to make progress and to allow the Attorney-General to answer some of my questions. I shall be grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advice. Essentially, the Government created the situation and it is they who must explain what it is that they are trying to achieve. The Government negotiated the opt-out and created considerable legal confusion in international and domestic law-potentially. It is appropriate for the Government to offer clarification, and I look forward to hearing the Attorney-General's explanation.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): I call Mr. Peter Luff.
  Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
  7 pm
  Mr. Luff: I have to say that I agree—
  The Attorney-General: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I have been asked specially to listen to my hon.
  730
  Friend before I answer. I said out of courtesy that I would do so. I do not anticipate that my hon. Friend will take very long.
  Mr. Luff: I shall first make the observation that— Interruption]
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has the Floor, and I ask other right hon. and hon. Members to listen.
  Mr. Luff: Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee occasionally complain that the Government do not listen enough. I welcome how carefully my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is listening to all the valuable comments made in all parts of the House on this occasion. One cannot have it both ways. If the Government do not listen, they are accused by some of arrogance and of not considering an alternative point of view. If they listen, they are criticised by others for doing that.
  The same is happening in the debate on railway privatisation. In the early stages of that debate, the Government were again accused of not being prepared to debate the matter. They launched a debate through a series of consultation papers and the Transport Select Committee criticised them for not having a clear view of their objectives. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for paying such close attention to today's debate.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that Parliament is not always at its best when it debates closely argued points of law. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), I am not a lawyer, so it was with some trepidation that I ventured to intervene in such a careful, legal debate. I refer in particular to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), which drew widely on historical allusions. His allusion to Humpty Dumpty was particularly valuable, powerful and relevant. Many of us feel that this debate is being used by some as another opportunity to have Humpty Dumpty fall off his wall and experience more difficulty in being put back together again in the shape of the Maastricht treaty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford confused the purpose of the Bill. In the early part of his speech, he seemed to suggest that the Bill seeks to ratify the treaty, when it does not: it seeks only to introduce into British law those elements of the Maastricht treaty which must be incorporated into British law. It is eminently sensible to propose that a particular amendment to a social protocol which will not affect Britain need not be incorporated.
  While waiting to be called, I glanced briefly through the appendices on the protocols in Cm. 1934 and identified a number of protocols which surely would not significantly impede ratification of the treaty were we disinclined to integrate them in British law. I refer, for example, to the protocol on page 89 about the acquisition of property in Denmark, the protocol on Denmark on page 113, the protocol on Portugal on page 114, the protocol on certain provisions relating to Denmark on page 116, the protocol on France on page 117, and the derogation to Spain and Portugal on page 126 in relation to pollution from large combustible plants. None is central to ratification of the treaty by the British Government, and it is right that none should be incorporated into British law. The same is true of the social protocol.
  Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has read in Hansard a written answer given to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) on Friday:
  "The social protocol is an annexe to the treaty of Rome"—
  not an annexe to the Maastricht treaty—
  "and is therefore an integral part of that treaty. It has been the United Kingdom's consistent legislative practice to incorporate all amendments to the Community treaties into domestic law."—[Official Report, 19 February.1993; Vol. 219, c. 364.]
  Why should we change?
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Maastricht is essentially an appendix to the treaty of Rome, as it seeks to amend that treaty in conjunction with it. The fact remains that the social protocol does not apply to and therefore there is no need to incorporate it into British law.
  Tonight's debate exposes my central concern about the Bill's passage through the House. Many right hon. and hon. Members, while professing to stand for Parliament's practices and history, are using a series of parliamentary tactics in an attempt to destroy the Bill and to prevent the Government from ratifying the treaty. That is deplorable.
  I am puzzled when I hear some of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members vehemently defend Parliament's privileges and accuse the Government of riding roughshod over it when many of those same hon. Friends and Opposition Members are calling strongly for a referendum. Nothing would more fundamentally undermine the privileges, traditions and power of Parliament than a referendum on this issue.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Rubbish. Power to the people. Trust the people.
  Mr. Luff: I do.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Is it not worse still that the hon. Members to whom he refers are not only espousing a referendum, which would totally undermine the central sovereignty of this institution, but going further? They would undermine Parliament in an additional, reprehensible fashion, by saying that we must wait for Denmark's parliamentary decisions, legislation and referendum before agreeing to proceed. Is that not in stark contrast with the notion put forward by hon. Members that we should wait for the judgment or opinion of the European Parliament? That would be described by the same hon. Members as gross—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members that this is a dilatory motion directed at one particular point. We do not want a general, discursive debate.
  Mr. Luff: I shall, of course, respect your ruling, Dame Janet, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I make no secret of the fact—this is the thrust of my speech—that I want the Bill to make the most rapid progress possible. If I have any criticism of the Government, it is that progress has not been made fast enough. I want the Bill to pass through the House at the earliest possible date. It has always been my view that Parliament need not wait on the result of the Danish referendum.
  732
  I want to express my strongest possible support for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in their revised legal judgment on amendment No. 27. There is always more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth, and I am always delighted when the Government have the courage to admit that they may have got something wrong. I can think of a number of issues affecting my constituents where I would welcome a similar change of heart by the Government. However, I am not one to join in the hue and cry of U-turn and scandal when the Government produce a revised opinion.
  Opposition Members have difficulty in accepting unpalatable truths. First, they were led to believe that they could incorporate amendment No. 27 in such a way that it would not wreck the treaty. They were led into taking that view by their socialist friends in other European member states, yet they seemed prepared to continue to risk the possibility of wrecking the Bill, despite the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend says that Opposition Members have attempted to wreck the Bill by introducing the amendment. Does he agree that, if the social chapter were introduced into domestic law, it would wreck the economy of this country?
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have heard comments from a number of foreign Governments—and from Mr. Delors—about the likely impact of the incorporation of the social protocol, and the social chapter, into domestic law. It is no coincidence that we now hear noises from other member states—especially Spain and Greece—suggesting that they are having second thoughts about the wisdom of the social charter, and are recognising the social and economic penalties that they could pay for incorporating it into their domestic law.
  Amendment No. 27 does not achieve what Opposition Members hoped that it would achieve. They hoped that it would force the British Government back to the negotiating table at a new intergovernmental conference. Now, they are disillusioned and disappointed.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the amendment will not achieve what Opposition Members wanted. In column 27 of Hansard, 15 February 1993, the Minister of State is quoted as saying, on 20 January,
  "that if amendment No. 27 were carried, United Kingdom law would not conform to the provisions of the treaty and that the United Kingdom would therefore be unable to ratify the treaty."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 27.]
  It is nothing to do with Opposition Members; the Minister of State said that. The Government were in a desperate plight looking around for another legal explanation—and, like all lawyers, they got hold of a lawyer to give them the explanation that they wanted. That lawyer happened to be the Attorney-General. I will give the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Lull) some guidance: he should be wary of trusting any lawyer, especially the lawyer sitting on the Front Bench whom he says he is going to trust.
  Mr. Luff: Some Conservative Members might give similar advice to the hon. Gentleman about the lawyer who leads his party. He should be similarly distrustful of that lawyer. It must be extremely disappointing for the hon. Gentleman to discover that an amendment drafted by

  733
  a party led by a distinguished lawyer will not have the effect that his party hoped that it would have and will not force the Government into the social charter against the will of the people of this country.
  Treaties are difficult to negotiate, and I find it surprising that the Committee should seek to compound the difficulties. Already this country operates the most thorough scrutiny of Government proposals for treaties and of their successful negotiations. I do not think that any other European Community state has such detailed procedural methods of scrutinising treaties. A clear choice faces the Committee. The suggestion that amendment No. 27 is the be-all and end-all of parliamentary sovereignty is ludicrous. Plainly, a further choice faces the House—Third Reading. If Opposition Members feel that the omission of the social charter from the Bill, and therefore from the treaty that we ratify, is such a serious point of principle, they have the option of voting against it.
  I believe that a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party took place last week. I pay tribute to some Opposition Members: according to press reports of that meeting, the Labour party will not make it its policy to seek to wreck the treaty. I welcome that, but I find it surprising that the Opposition have again sought to delay progress, using the device of a debate on amendment No. 27. We all remember the debate on the paving motion before Christmas, and the cynical contortions performed by some Opposition Members in order to reach the appropriate position.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who, in a passionate rejoinder to a comment by me, reminded the House that the country faced more important issues than ratification of the Maastricht treaty. I believe that the treaty should be an uncontroversial piece of legislation, and that it should pass quickly on to the statute book, enabling hon. Members to debate the other crucial issues affecting our country. Later, we shall have an opportunity to debate many of those issues: I am thinking particularly of the development co-operation section.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman now seems to be making a very general point. Will he either return to the subject or resume his seat?
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Luff: Let me turn specifically to the question of amendment No. 27. [HON. MEMBERS: "Filibuster."] I do not think that I need to take lessons in filibustering from some of the hon. Members who surround me tonight.
  As I have said, I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the statement made to the House by the Foreign Secretary of 15 February has the great merit of common sense. I thought that what he said was true even before he said it to the House. I was surprised, in a way, to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of State suggest that the amendment would wreck the treaty; I did not think that it would. My right hon. Friend said:
  "Any amendment that would render United Kingdom law incompatible with the treaty would have the effect of making it impossible for the treaty to be ratified. Thus, from the Government's point of view, it is necessary for such amendments to be defeated. Other amendments, while we
  734
  may oppose them as undesirable, do not render United Kingdom law incompatible with the terms of the treaty."— [Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 319, c. 20.]
  I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the House can think of a number of such amendments which would be profoundly undesirable—such as the referendum amendment—but we shall resist them. What the Foreign Secretary said is clear.
  Mr. Milligan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for the frustration over the incompetence of amendment No. 27 is its support by the wholly bogus alliance of those who wish to destroy the Maastricht treaty with those who wish to insert the social chapter although there is no majority in the House for either proposition? The reason for the anger is not what the Government have done. The Government have behaved honestly and honourably in coming forward with clear legal advice, when it might have been more convenient to wait until the amendment was voted on; the anger and frustration result from the fact that the scheme has not worked.
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point, but there is a third category in the unholy alliance that he has cited: those who seek to undermine the very future of the European Community.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) accused the Government of incompetence. I think that that charge rests far more fairly and squarely on his shoulders, and on those of his hon. Friends who have failed to draft the amendment successfully. I rejoice in that, however, because it means that we do not now face the incorporation of the social charter in British law.
  I am anxious for the treaty to make rapid progress, and for the Bill to pass through its stages quickly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I shall sit down shortly. I am eager for the due process of law to be completed, so that we can return to the more pressing matters that confront the House.
  The Attorney-General: Those who have been present throughout the debate will have observed that the interest generated in the Committee has fluctuated. A great deal of interest was rightly shown when the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) opened the debate by posing a number of careful and detailed questions of legal relevance, which I hope to be able to answer. Later, interest seemed to wane.
  I had looked forward to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), on the assumption that, as an experienced lawyer, he would ask a number of detailed questions; unfortunately, however, the piece of paper on which I noted them down is less full than anyone who knew my hon. Friend might expect. Indeed, I am not sure that he asked me any real legal questions in his 50-minute speech. Consequently, observers outside will realise that, although this is an important legal occasion, it is also a political one—and the politics and the tactics of the debate seem to have fluctuated from time to time.
  I have some serious questions to answer on the legal aspects. Many hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have asked whether the Government would be willing to publish the Law Officers' legal advice in this matter. In answering no, I owe the Committee a clear explanation and I shall give one. I have been a Law Officer

  735
  for rising six years and I know that Law Officers advise the Government on a variety of issues every week—the variety is fascinating and remarkable.
  Only one standard will do for legal advice—the best and the most careful opinion that the adviser can give, on the information available. Drawing on the six years that I have been a Law Officer and the six years or more that I spent as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sir Michael Havers when he was Attorney-General, I am not aware of any precedent for the publication of Law Officers' advice to the Government, although I stand to be corrected. Occasionally the Law Officers come before the House or a Committee of the House to give prepared advice on an issue.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Were there not exceptional circumstances in this case? Shortly after the Minister of State gave his opinion on advice from Foreign Office legal advisers, the Attorney-General came back with a wholly contradictory view. Does not the House therefore have a right to a view of the opinion?
  The Attorney-General: That is important, but the hon. Gentleman does not put his finger on the heart of the matter. If the Committee is given an important statement—such as that made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 27 January, on amendment No. 27—which is later scrutinised in greater detail and the Law Officers' advice sought upon it, as happened in this case, and if the advice of myself and the Lord Advocate is different from that given to the Committee by my right hon. Friend, it is our duty to come before the Committee at the earliest opportunity to correct the matter. We must do so to enable important issues, such as those raised by amendment No. 27, to be debated on the correct basis.
  It is not the first time that legal advice has turned out to be different. I cannot recall any occasion when the Law Officers' advice has been disclosed and nor can the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and I shall not break precedent.
  Mr. Maclennan: Does not the Attorney-General recognise that his experience of practice during the past six years has, to some extent, been overtaken by a recent decision of the House of Lords to treat what is said by Ministers at the Dispatch Box as evidence for the interpretation of what a Bill intends? By his performance tonight, the Attorney-General has therefore contributed to subsequent law-making processes in the courts. By denying the Committee the written opinion, which he might have put in the Library before the debate began, he has denied it the opportunity to examine the advice critically, with the benefit of other advice, which could have enabled our debate to be better informed.
  The Attorney-General: I am well aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman referred to because I argued it in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Maclennan: And lost.
  The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has paid a great deal of attention to what was argued in that case or to the issues before the House.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although I am not a lawyer, I have been listening to Attorneys-General since the time of Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller. Forgive me for being sceptical, but the Attorney-General used the
  736
  phrase, "in greater detail". Apparently the matter was considered in greater detail. If it had been a trivial matter, we would of course accept that explanation, but the issue is central. Cannot lay people among us ask why the issue was not considered in the greatest detail in the first place? At best, the situation can be described as casual, but I do not think that that is how the Attorney-General's office or his officers operate. They are extremely careful civil servants. Are we really to believe that the "greater detail" altered the substance of the opinion?
  The Attorney-General: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to suggest that the legal advice was anything other than careful or accurate. It certainly was careful and accurate—it was the best legal advice that I and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate could give and I believe that it is the right advice.
  The Foreign Office has excellent legal advisers, who advise carefully on a host of matters and since I have had to give some thought to the matter, I have had the benefit of their views.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton asked about the substance of the advice given by the Lord Advocate and myself. When addressing the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I referred to Hansard because my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it absolutely clear that, in expressing the legal view in his statement last Monday, he was expressing the views of the Lord Advocate and myself. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked me to clarify that advice. It is exactly as stated in columns 27 and 28 of Hansard by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he addressed the House at this time last week.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton also asked about the timing of the advice. I received the request for my advice on 9 February and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreigh Secretary asked his officials to obtain advice on 25 January. I did not receive the request or instructions until Tuesday 9 February. The Lord Advocate and IF advised on Wednesday evening, and the Foreign Secretary received the advice the following morning, Thursday 11 February. That is the chronology of the matter.
  Mr. George Robertson: In the light of that answer, I have two questions for the Attorney-General. First, was any approach made to his Department—at any level—during the 10 months that amendment No. 27 lay on the Table? Secondly, given that his and the Lord Advocate's advice was given to the Foreign Secretary on Thursday morning, did it go to the Cabinet, and if not, why not?
  The Attorney-General: I cannot answer the last part of the question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?") Because I am not a member of the Cabinet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That is quite straightforward.
  As to the hon. Gentleman's first question—about whether advice was from those who help me in the legal secretariat to the Law Officers in my chambers—to the best of my knowledge, advice was not sought until the dates that I gave. Previously, advice was given by Foreign Office legal advisers.
  That takes me on to the way in which I can best assist the Committee with amendment No. 27 and other amendments along the same lines that it will have to consider. I seek to give some guidance about amendments that, if passed, might prevent ratification. I shall make a number of points, and I shall try to make them rather

  737
  deliberately so that they can be not only listened to but read coherently if anybody should wish to refer to them in future debates on the Bill.
  The first point, as the Committee will appreciate, is that the Maastricht treaty must be ratified as a whole. Parliament can prevent its ratification by refusing to enact the Bill—by refusing to give it a Third Reading—but it cannot in any way modify the provisions of the treaty.
  7.30 pm
  The Committee will also have in mind the fact that the Maastricht treaty contains provisions of at least two different types. It contains some provisions that are intergovernmental in nature—one has in mind titles V and VI—and some that amend Community treaties. Here, those who have studied the Bill will have in mind titles 11 and IV. There is no need to incorporate into our domestic law the intergovernmental aspects of the treaty contained in titles V and VI.
  Any amendment to the Bill that, by preventing incorporation of a treaty provision into our domestic law, makes it impossible for the United Kingdom to implement its Community obligations would cause us to regard ourselves as unable to ratify the treaty and would mean that if we did ratify we should be in breach of our treaty obligations as soon as the treaty came into effect. That is the key test. That is the heart of the matter that we are discussing.
  More generally, amendments that seek to omit or amend provisions on Community treaties must be strongly resisted. It is important—this is not a matter of the tightest law but it is very important as a matter of legislative practice—to preserve consistency between our domestic law and Community law as it is applicable to the United Kingdom. That is best achieved by following the United Kingdom's consistent legislative practice of incorporating in domestic law not only all amendments to Community treaties but any protocols annexed to those treaties. The Government therefore continue to oppose deletion of the social protocol from the proposed revised list of Community treaties in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. and learned Friend speaks of the importance of conformity between the Act and the treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty of Maastricht. If it subsequently emerged that we had implemented the treaty incorrectly in our legislation, it would not matter because the European Court would direct us to rectify any clash between Community law and our own law. Indeed, if we failed so to amend the law we could be fined under article 171 of the Maastricht treaty.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is half right. He says that it would not matter, but it would matter, because we would be in breach of our Community obligations. After we had been the subject of infraction proceedings, and if the European Court ruled against us—we do our best not to be in that position—it would be necessary for us to come back to the House and move amending legislation to render our domestic law in conformity with Community law. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) understood that point.
  Mr. Budgen: Let us assume that the Government take a chance and decide that they will go ahead with the treaty without the protocol. If that situation arose and the matter were brought before our domestic courts on judicial review, would not that give rise to the risk of a conflict between Parliament and the judges?
  The Attorney-General: Not in the way that my hon. Friend may have in mind, no, but I shall deal with that a little later.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Attorney-General give way?
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Davies: I have the answer here.
  The Attorney-General: I am most grateful, but it is just possible that I have it, too.
  The Committee will recall that, since the social protocol expressly states that acts adopted under the agreement of the other 11 member states shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom, the deletion of the social protocol from the Bill and consequently the failure to incorporate it in our domestic law would not render the United Kingdom incapable of fulfilling its obligations under the treaty of union and would not therefore prevent ratification. It is a double negative. We would not be incorporating something which expressly by its terms provides that acts done under it shall not be applicable to us—a double negative.
  Amendments that seek to incorporate provisions of the intergovernmental pillars as Community obligations would produce a nonsense in our domestic law. Provisions in the intergovernmental titles are not Community law obligations and it would be quite wrong to incorporate them in our law as if they were. Some amendments may affect only our domestic—
  Mr. Gould: Will the Attorney-General give way?
  The Attorney-General: May I finish the point? I should like to get this on the record, and then I shall give way.
  Some amendments may affect only our domestic procedures for implementing the treaty obligations. An example might be amendment No. 28 on the Committee of the Regions, which the House was about to reach until the dilatory motion was moved. If these amendments were passed, we should have to examine carefully whether our law would still be consistent with our international obligations. But provided this condition were met, amendments in that category would not be fatal to ratification.
  Application of those principles will, I think, make it clear into which category particular amendments fall. The great majority would be likely to prevent ratification. There are, however, some other parts of the treaty such as the Danish protocol on second homes—here I have in mind the point that was put to me by my hon. Frend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), who mentioned that protocol and a number of similar protocols—where it is hard to see that non-incorporation would prevent ratification. As I have said, certain amendments relating to purely domestic procedures may fall into the same category because they are not inconsistent with our Community obligations.
  If, however, it is not clear how to apply those principles to particular amendments in the future, I am willing to

  739
  examine the matter carefully and give the Committee further advice. I hope that that is helpful as a broad way of looking at it.
  Mr. Maclennan rose—
  Mr. Denzil Davies rose—
  Mr. Gould rose—
  The Attorney-General: I see that three hon. Members are anxious to ask me questions, but, with respect, I see that the hon. Member for Hamilton also wishes to intervene.
  Mr. George Robertson: I am not certain whether the Attorney-General is clarifying the point. He is reading from a piece of paper that deals with different issues and he moves smartly from the area about which there is controversy to bits about which there is no controversy. He said that the Maastricht treaty must be ratified as a whole, but then he said that exclusion of the social protocol would not affect ratification. If that is the case, he will ratify that part of the Maastricht treaty by a means other than that which was intended when the Committee stage began. Will the Attorney-General confirm whether the Government will ratify the social protocol, which may by a vote of the House have been missed out of the Bill in which it is presently situated, by using the royal prerogative, because there is no other way of doing it?
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman confuses the two quite different processes of ratification and incorporation of a particular provision into our domestic law. I see that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), who understands these matters, is nodding, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not understand them himself.
  Mr. Gould: The Attorney-General's argument rests on the proposition that the omission of the social protocol would make no difference in domestic law, but has he considered the possibility that the explicit disclaimer of any obligations under the social agreement might help a domestic court to decide the extent of our obligations, not necessarily under the social agreement but under the general provisions of the treaty of Rome, requiring us to provide conditions of free competition? If that were the case—and I should be happy to argue that in a domestic court—the absence of that disclaimer would equally make a difference to domestic law and would run contrary to the Government's purposes in putting the disclaimer into domestic law in the first place, which is their intention under the Bill as drafted.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently good lawyer to be able to recognise the different way in which the argument threads its way through what he said. Whether or not what he said is true, it has nothing to do with whether we can ratify the treaty. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is kindly nodding, recognises that, so we shall leave his point.
  Mr. Maclennan: Will the Attorney-General deal with the question of ratification of the treaty and section 6 of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, which requires the approval of Parliament? The social protocol is a treaty like any other. Will he state whether, in his view, clause 1(2), which refers to the treaty, not to the treaty and the protocol, is referring to the protocol, because the
  740
  advice that I gave earlier is that it does not? Therefore, the protocol cannot under domestic law be ratified if amendment No. 27 is passed.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman would be taking me slightly off course if I answered that question immediately, but I shall answer it, and clearly. Just to give the hon. Gentleman a quick foretaste, I am absolutely satisfied that clause 1(2) covers that matter comprehensively, but I shall return to it in more detail. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ashfield, because I mentioned him earlier.
  Mr. Hoon: Does the Attorney-General believe that it is possible for the Government to ratify the protocol on social policy if Parliament has specifically excluded it from incorporation into domestic law?
  The Attorney-General: Yes is the answer. The hon. Gentleman will know that that must be my answer. Our obligation is to incorporate into domestic law those portions of the treaty that give rise to obligations on the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the social protocol expressly states that it does not affect domestic law.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Attorney-General has answered fairly, can he help the House by saying when there was a precedent of the Government ratifying part of a treaty which the House of Commons has specifically voted to exclude? It would be helpful if we knew when that last happened.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has probably given more thought than anyone else to the Bill, but, with respect, he should think more precisely. He said that the House has voted to exclude the social protocol from the treaty. That is not correct. If the Committee were to pass amendment No. 27 it would have voted merely not to incorporate the social protocol into domestic law. It must be clear to my hon. Friend and to the Committee—I say this with all respect—that nothing we can do in the Committee can amend the treaty. The treaty can only—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: When did it last happen? Has it ever happened?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. If the right hon. and learned Member who has the floor does not give way, other hon. Members know that they must resume their seats.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Has it ever happened before?
  The Attorney-General: I do not know the answer to that question, but I do not believe that it is of constitutional importance.
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  The Attorney-General: No, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make a little progress. I want to deal with three other points, including that raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.

  741
  7.45 pm
  A number of hon. Members asked about the obligation to share administrative costs of action by the other 11 countries, which is referred to in the social protocol. My view is that the obligation to share those administrative costs is covered by the listing of the own resources decision in section 1 (2) of the European Communities Act 1972—I believe that this point is of some interest to the House—assuming that such expenses are included, as seems likely, within the Community budget.
  If, however, such expenses were not called forward in the Community budget as a whole, in which case there would be the authority that I have just mentioned, expenditure could be made on the authority of votes and on the authority of the annual Appropriation Act alone. In giving authority for that particular expenditure in relation to a treaty obligation, the House will be following exactly the same practice as we follow, for example, in relation to payments to NATO and similar treaties.
  The second point is that there is no constitutional impropriety in continuing with ratification if amendment No. 27 is passed. My answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir. T. Taylor) made it clear that Parliament cannot pick and choose which treaty obligations to accept, but it can prevent ratification of the entire treaty by refusing to enact the Bill.
  I deal now with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland who mentioned the opinion received by the right hon. Member the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). There can be no question of increasing the powers of the European Parliament without prior approval from the United Kingdom in accordance with the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. However, I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that clause 1(2), if enacted, would approve the entire Maastricht treaty for that purpose. I invite all hon. Members to read the extremely clear and broad terms of clause 1 (2). I am satisfied that they cover that particular point.
  Mr. Maclennan: This is the heart of the question. The matter is not as clear as the Attorney-General has sought to make out. In the terms of clause 1(2), the reference to the "Treaty on European Union" is to be interpreted as including the protocol. I say that because it is clear from clause 1(1), which includes the protocol, that the language is explicit and refers to all the protocols adopted at Maastricht. That is a key question.
  It is also clear from the language of the treaty that the protocol was adopted as a separate instrument and was annexed to the treaty. Passage was to be considered to be without prejudice to the treaty. I find the Attorney-General's rather glib answer on the point wholly unconvincing, as I believe will many lawyers.
  It is not satisfactory to suggest that the Committee has abided properly by the requirements of section 6 of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. All that the Attorney-General is doing is inviting others to table amendments similar to those tabled for clause 1(1) in respect of clause 1(2) to put the matter beyond any doubt. The Attorney-General does not escape from the trap that he has sprung for himself.
  The Attorney-General: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is in a good position to start talking about traps being sprung for people. He will be aware that his
  742
  right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has now sent my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister three letters on this matter. From the first letter, it seemed pretty clear that the right hon. Member for Yeovil had not read the Bill. Neither the letter nor the advice appended to it made any reference to clause 1(2).
  I remind the Committee that clause 1(2) says:
  "For the purpose of section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (approval of treaties increasing the Parliament's powers) the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992 is approved."
  The protocols were signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992. They were all signed at the same time.
  Mr. Maclennan: There were separate signatures.
  The Attorney-General: Yes, it is true that there were separate signatures. The hon. Gentleman should also bear it in mind that the protocols signed at Maastricht are expressly annexed to the treaty of Rome. He should also bear it in mind that article 239 of the treaty of Rome says:
  "The Protocols annexed to this Treaty by common accord of the Member States shall form an integral part thereof."
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has written to the right hon. Member for Yeovil on more than one occasion, has endeavoured to explain in his letter, the provisions of clause 1(1) and the provisions of clause 1(2) perform entirely different functions.
  Clause 1(1) deals with the provisions of the treaty that require to be incorporated into our domestic law. It is clause 1(2) which provides the necessary parliamentary approval, for the purpose of section 6 of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, for the whole of the treaty on European union. I emphasise that it is for the whole of that treaty.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for giving way and I shall not weary him or the Committee again on this point. The Attorney-General cites the case of the treaty of Rome and the protocols thereto being integral. By so doing, he underlines the precise difference between the treaty of Rome and its protocols and the treaty of Maastricht and its protocols. There is no statement in the treaty of Maastricht that its protocols are integral. Indeed, the treaty expressly says:
  "this Protocol and the said Agreement are without prejudice to the provisions of this Treaty".
  That emphasises the independent character as an international agreement for the purposes of section 6 of the 1978 Act. I am afraid to say that the Attorney-General, far from clearing up the matter, has left the position more confused.
  The Attorney-General: I say with respect to the hon. Gentleman that the situation may be worse confounded in his mind. I believe that the position will be clearer to those who look at the matter carefully and dispassionately. I simply point out that the protocol on social policy says at item 3:
  "This Protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community."
  If the hon. Gentleman reads that in conjunction with article 239, which I have just quoted to the Committee, he will see that it becomes an integral part of the treaty of Rome on ratification. I believe that that matter puts the question beyond doubt. There are a number of other arguments that I could deploy, but it would probably be unhelpful for me to go further at this moment.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is the Attorney-General saying that, if clause 1(2) were to be amended specifically to exclude the protocol on social policy, it will be impossible for the Government to ratify that protocol?
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. I have said that if amendments are tabled and if the Committee needs assistance in future, I shall be prepared to consider the matter and to give what help I can. The position must be clear from what I have already said. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber and listening, he would have heard me say that if the great majority of amendments were passed, they would render it possible for the Government to ratify the treaty. It is not altogether surprising that the hon. Gentleman may be able to dream up one or two others which would make it possible to wreck the treaty, if that was his intention and that of his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Macdonald: The question is not hypothetical because I tabled such an amendment earlier this evening. If the amendment is selected, voted on and agreed to by the Committee, would it be impossible for the Government to ratify the protocol on social policy, if that protocol were specifically to be excluded from clause 1(2)?
  The Attorney-General: I have sufficient respect for the hon. Gentleman's amendment to say that I should have to look at it before expressing an opinion. He will, of course, have to consider how popular his amendment is with his hon. Friends and whether it is a matter that he wishes to press to a conclusion.
  I have covered many points this evening. If I look quickly at my notes, I can see whether any other matters have been raised.
  Mr. John Fraser: The Attorney-General is arguing that the social protocol does not affect British domestic law. Let us take the example of a United Kingdom national working for a United Kingdom company who acquires rights while working for that company in one of the other 11 states. Let us suppose that that person returns to the United Kingdom and wishes to enforce in the United Kingdom rights that have come as a result of the social chapter. Surely that means that the social chapter would have created rights that were enforceable in British domestic law. Surely what the chapter does is to exclude the United Kingdom Government from implementing matters in the social chapter. What it does not do is to exclude the creation of rights inside the Community which may be enforceable in the United Kingdom domestic courts. It therefore has an effect on British domestic law.
  The Attorney-General: I recommend the hon. Gentleman to look once again at the social protocol. He will realise that the hypothetical position that he has proposed would have been a result of acts adopted by the Council under the social chapter. The protocol on social policy says absolutely expressly:
  "Acts adopted by the Council and any financial consequences other than administrative costs…shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
  I believe that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question perfectly clearly.
  I have just a few more points to make before I sit down. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester asked whether
  744
  there were other protocols which, if we did not annex them, might not render it impossible for us to ratify the treaty. I have given an indication of a certain number of those. I have given a general indication as to the guidance which the Committee might seek in deciding upon particular amendments, and I hope that that is of assistance.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Attorney-General has given a very learned and weighty opinion. Has that opinion convinced the Foreign Office legal advisers of the error of their original opinion?
  The Attorney-General: I think that that is unkind, and I can tell the House that I have had an enormous amount of assistance from the Foreign Office legal advisers. They agree with the opinion that the Lord Advocate and I have given to the Committee.
  Mr. George Robertson rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division:—
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait(seated and covered): On a point of order, Dame Janet. I should like to protest most strongly, because I wanted to take part in this debate of prime constitutional importance, but the Labour party has denied me that opportunity.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I have accepted the closure, so there is no further discussion.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.
  Question put accordingly and agreed to.
  Committee report progress
  The Second Deputy Chairman: To sit again what day?—[Interruption.] I repeat, Committee what day? [HON. MEMBERS: "Now"] No, it cannot be now. Thursday?
  Mr. Don Dixon: Thursday week.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: We must have an answer from an hon. Member who acts on behalf of the Government.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Christmas Day.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Tomorrow.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I hope that we are now clear that the Committee will sit again tomorrow.
  Committee to sit again tomorrow.

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.

  PUBLIC PATH ORDERS
  That the draft Local Authorities (Recovery of Costs for Public Path Orders) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  FISH (POLLUTION)
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) (No. 2) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 143), dated 27th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before we go on to the next Order of the Day, may I ask for a little peace and quiet?

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

  FEEDING STUFFS (NUTRITIONAL PURPOSES)
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8412/92, relating to feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes, and supports the Government's aims of seeking to clarify the scope of and justification for the proposed measure, and of ensuring that any measures which may be agreed place no unjustifiable burdens on pet food companies or other sectors of the feed industry.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
8.6 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Adjournment is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). My hon. Friend and I put in for this Adjournment and, as my colleague is not here, I was wondering whether I could start without him.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the answer is absolutely no.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since it is just 8 pm, may I have an Adjournment on the terms of reference of Lord Justice Scott's report? I note that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is present, and he is always willing to be obliging. If I were to initiate as debate on Lord Justice Scott's terms of reference, perhaps he could answer it. Do I take it that that is in order?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is in error. It is not in order. I must now put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eight o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he requested legal advice on amendment No. 27 to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill from the Government's Law Officers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Law Officers were formally consulted on 9 February.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the advice his Department has received on amendment No. 27 to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 15 February, at column 27.

  E1 Salvador (Human Rights)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the fulfilment of the guarantee given by Alfredo Cristiani of El Salvador to the United Nations Secretary-General in November 1992 concerning the transfer or retirement of officers from his army who had been named as human rights violators.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  In a letter to the President of the United Nations Security Council on 7 January, the UN Secretary-General accepted as satisfactory the measures adopted and implemented by the Government of El Salvador with respect to 87 of the 102 army officers covered by the recommendations of the ad hoc commission set up under the El Salvador peace accords. However, the Secretary General said that the measures adopted in respect of the other 15 officers did not comply with those recommendations. The Security Council on 9 February expressed concern at this situation.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received about the situation in Bosnia since 8 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary of State has received no visitors specifically to discuss Bosnia since 8 February. It is a frequent topic in his discussions with overseas visitors and others. He has received numerous letters from members of the public and hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct Her Majesty's ambassador in Tunis to convey to the Palestine Liberation Organisation the concern of Her Majesty's Government at the continuing contacts between Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The PLO is well aware of our views on Saddam Hussein.

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)Official Report, column 358, what is his Department's (a) current outturn estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (b) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The current estimated expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for publicity in 1992–93 and the budgeted expenditure for publicity in 1993–94 are:

  FCO Diplomatic wing £

  FCO ODA wing £

  1992–93

  951,500

  680,000

  1993–94

  566,001

  680,000

  Communications Courses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what equipment those attending communications courses in Northamptonshire in the last six months have been trained; when the models of equipment concerned are to be withdrawn; and what is the per capita cost for those attending such courses, including travelling, subsistence and accommodation.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No FCO personnel have attended communications courses in Northamptonshire in the last six months. FCO staff have been trained at Hanslope Park in Buckinghamshire on numerous types of equipment over the last six months. Certain radio and teleprinter equipment is now being withdrawn as more cost-effective PC-based communication systems are installed worldwide. The average cost, including all overheads, per student per day is about £90.

  Air Travel
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what class of air ticket staff travel when travelling to and from posts abroad; and what assessment he has made of the relative costs to his Department of their travelling on(a) economy or excursion fares and (b) business class fares.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The types of ticket to which diplomatic service officers and their families are entitled accord with guidance set by HM Treasury. Almost all officers on duty, transfer and mid-tour leave travel economy class on journeys of up to two and a half hours, and business class
  411
  for longer journeys. Very senior officers may travel in a higher class in certain circumstances, by virtue of their grade or for operational reasons: such cases amount to about 1.5 per cent. of total journeys. All other leave journeys and children's holiday visit passages, including journeys over two and a half hours, are by the cheapest means: economy or Apex fares.

  We have not made an assessement of the relative cost of downgrading the class of travel, for example from business to economy class. Air fare pricing is constantly changing: our travel services contractor logs 1.6 million changes a day. We judge that the entitlements set by HM Treasury represent a reasonable balance of economy, operational needs, and comfort for the traveller.

  The FCO constantly strives for greater value for money. We have agreements with a number of airlines which provide for substantial discounts, negotiated in partnership with our travel services contractors, with whom we also have a special arrangement to reduce cost.

  Mr. Mahal Khalil
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 840, concerning Mr. Mahal Khalil—Ref: IMM/B4131—if he will make it his policy that any appeal made by Mr. Khalil against refusal to grant entry clearance will be accepted; if he will arrange for an appeal to be given priority in view of the delay caused by administrative error; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Should Mr. Khalil submit an appeal against the decision to refuse entry clearance, the entry clearance officer—ECO—at the high commission in Islamabad will accept the appeal. The ECO will give priority to the preparation of his explanatory statement. Mr. Khalil may wish to ask in his appeal that it be given priority, and the independent appellate authority would no doubt give full consideration to such a request.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authorities (Legislation)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the consultation procedures with local authorities on the implications for them of intended legislation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under recent legislation, where consultation is necessary, the Secretary of State is required to consult"such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate".

  For these purposes we consult the local authority associations. Consultation documents cover the resource implications of proposals for local authorities. Even where there is no statutory requirement, it is the Government's policy and practice to consult the associations so that local government's views can be taken into account as early in the formulation of policy and legislation as possible. In addition, there are regular informal meetings between Ministers and the chairmen of the associations at which the direction of policy and the possibility of future legislation are discussed.

  These consultation arrangements are kept under review and are regularly discussed with the associations.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which organisations are currently being funded under the urban programme in Lambeth.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The organisations currently being funded under Lambeth's urban programme are listed as follows

  1. London Borough of Lambeth

  2. Camberwell District Health Authority

  3. West Lambeth District Health Authority

  Voluntary Organisations

  1. Melting Pot Foundation-Green Badge Taxi School

  2. LMHS-Roots and Shoots

  3. Angell Town Estate Enterprise Centre

  4. Front Line Women's Organisation

  5. Lambeth Turkish Speaking Community

  6. Lambeth Youth Aid-Textile Printers

  7. Worklink

  8. Plant Exchange

  9. Allen Edwards Nature Gardens

  10. Loughborough Estate Tenants Association

  11. Brixton Sheltered Street Scheme

  12. Lambeth Chinese Community Association

  13. St. Martins Estate Community Project

  14. CLUFO/Vietnam Refugees

  15. Angell Town Community Nursery

  16. Frontline Development-Brixton Cares

  17. HAPA

  18. Allen Edwards Oasis Environmental Project

  19. Stockwell Good Neighbours

  20. Vietnamese Elderly Project

  21. Apostolic All Nations Community Centre

  22. Oval Options

  23. 198 Gallery

  24. Fanon Project-Brixton Circle

  25. Ashmole Tenant's Hall

  26. Norbury CHAS

  27. North Lambeth Day Centre Resettlement

  28. Organisation for Sickle Cell Research

  29. South Island Workshop Training Programme

  30. Myatts Field Community Centre

  31. Asian Community Action Group

  32. St. Vincents Community Centre

  33. Heath Road Community Project

  34. Black Contractors Association

  35. Lambeth Accord-Worklink

  36. Lambeth Business Association

  37. Lambeth Drugline

  38. Help 71

  39. Lilford Afterschool Group

  40. Springfield Community Flat

  41. Cathedral Employment

  42. QTAB

  43. LMHS-All Sewn Up

  44. The Baytree Centre

  45. Brixwork

  46. CALA Training Centre

  47. Blackfriars Settlement-Work Centre

  48. Eritrean Community

  49. Ethelred Estate

  50. Lambeth Summer Project

  51. Bondway Night Shelter

  52. West Indian Ex-Serviceman's Association

  53. Holy Trinity Church, Tulse Hill

  54. Lambeth Somali Community Association

  55. Turkish Speaking Community Project

  56. Dorset Road Community Hall

  Housing Starts
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of private sector housing starts in each year from 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  413
  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of housebuilding starts in England by sector each year from 1988 to 1991 are shown in table 6.1(a) of "Housing and Constuction Statistics 1981–1991". A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Figures for 1992 have been released in an information bulletin. On provisional estimates, there were 99,500 private enterprise and 27,400 housing association starts in England during 1992.

  Super-quarries
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of establishing super-quarries in Scotland on the requirement for production of aggregates in England and Wales.

  Mr. Baldry
  In considering the potential contribution which coastal super-quarries in north-west Europe might make to aggregates supplies, the consultants employed by my Department made a broad assessment of the planning and environmental issues involved. The Government have made it clear that individual applications will need very careful assessment and full regard will be had to their possible environmental impact.

  Rent Deposit Scheme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the pilot rent deposit scheme in west London funded by his Department; and if he will publish a report on the scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  The pilot project for a rent deposit fund operated by the Notting Hill Housing Trust—NHHT—and funded by my Department as part of the rough sleepers initiative in central London is due to end on 30 June 1993. My officials are at present discussing with NHHT how best to evaluate the scheme.

  Housing Associations (Grants)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will publish the affordability assumption used to determine grant rates to housing associations.

  Sir George Young
  Outturn rents are determined by housing associations. The Government do not publish the factors and assumptions implicit in the grant rate model or any general definition of affordability, since they do not wish to imply a view as to what constitutes an affordable rent in any particular case.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that all developments at waste incineration sites are subject to full environmental impact assessments;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that environmental impact assessments must be undertaken prior to developing new stacks on existing waste incineration sites;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to secure that environmental impact assessments are undertaken prior to any modification of existing waste incineration plants.
  414
  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, which implement directive 85/337/EEC in respect of projects requiring applications for planning permission, set out the circumstances in which an environmental assessment—EA —is required. For projects of the types described in scheduled 1 to the regulations, which include new waste disposal installations for the incineration of hazardous waste, an EA is mandatory. For projects of the types described in schedule 2 to the regulations, which include new installations for the incineration of non-hazardous waste and modifications of existing hazardous and non-hazardous waste incineration installations, an EA is required if the particular development proposed would be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location.

  Taxi Drivers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities with responsibility to issue hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers' licences which have not adopted the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following local authorities had not adopted the 1976 Act by 18 February 1993:

  Aberconwy District Council

  Bridgnorth District Council

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Glanford Borough Council

  Leominster District Council

  Mid Devon District Council

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  Monmouth District Council

  Newbury District Council

  Radnor District Council

  Rother District Council

  South Buckinghamshire District Council

  South Staffordshire District Council

  West Lindsey District Council

  Unless there is a local Act in force which contains a provision requiring them to be satisfied as to the fitness of an applicant, councils that have not adopted the 1976 Act cannot require a criminal record check of hackney carriage or private hire vehicle driver licence applicants.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what, for the latest available year, was the cost to his Department of expenditure in support of the royal family in respect of(a) expenditure on palaces in occupation of Her Majesty and residences occupied by members of the royal family and (b) the gentlemen-at-arms and yeoman of the guard.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  Expenditure in 1991–92 was £26,880,700 on the royal palaces and residences and £47,000 on the gentlemen-at-arms and yeoman of the guard.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he proposes to make available to London boroughs and the Common Council
  415
  during 1993–94 in respect of the extra costs due to his decisions on housing revenue account subsidy in respect of debt from the former Greater London council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his answer, 17 February 1993, c. 283–84]: To assist authorities further, my right hon. and learned Friend intends to change the statutory rules on minimum revenue provision so as to reduce the required minimum repayment of principal deemed debt in 1993–94 from an amount of 4 per cent. of the deemed debt to an amount of 0.5 per cent. of the deemed debt.

  I am arranging for London boroughs and the Common Council to be notified today of my right hon. and learned Friend's intentions, so that authorities can take account of them when setting their budgets for 1993–94.

TRANSPORT

  Safe Buses for Women
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he is carrying out into the operation of safe buses for women; what assessment he has made of their contribution; in which areas they are operating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is concerned with the safety of women as public transport users, as pedestrians and as motorists. No specific research has been undertaken into safe buses for women; our priority is, rather, to promote the safety of all passengers on public transport, including women.

  Ships (Seaworthiness)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken to ensure that ships entering British coastal waters are seaworthy.

  Mr. Norris
  All ships entering British coastal waters must carry valid safety certificates issued on behalf of the flag stage stating that the ship meets international requirements.

  United Kingdom ships are subject to surveys and random inspections by surveyors from the Department of Transport who also inspect foreign ships arriving at British ports under port state control procedures.

  Over 30 per cent., of foreign ships arriving at British ports are inspected under these procedures and it is

  British Rail investment expenditure 1979 to 1991–92

  £ million cash

  New routes

  New electrification

  Rolling stock

  Other capital investment

  Infrastructure

  Total

  Rail

  Non-rail

  revenue investment

  1979

  1

  5

  93

  48

  14

  106

  266

  1980

  0

  5

  122

  54

  14

  115

  309

  1981

  0

  4

  106

  47

  13

  107

  277

  1982

  0

  2

  98

  41

  6

  111

  258

  1983

  0

  4

  70

  54

  5

  146

  279

  1984–85

  0

  13

  79

  95

  13

  201

  402

  1985–86

  3

  36

  80

  131

  12

  150

  412

  1986–87

  8

  43

  79

  147

  19

  102

  398

  1987–88

  9

  43

  100

  148

  9

  172

  481

  1988–89

  9

  20

  206

  152

  25

  148

  560

  1989–90

  42

  38

  208

  223

  27

  174

  712

  1990–91

  63

  29

  262

  267

  30

  182

  833

  1991–92

  97

  25

  325

  320

  34

  205

  1,005

  416
  estimated that 80 per cent. of all ships arriving at ports within the area controlled by the memorandum of understanding for port state control are inspected.

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has to invite tenders to extend licence issuing outlets; and how many such additional outlets are to be authorised.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency invited competitive tenders for the issue of vehicle excise licences by advertisement in the national press on 30 October last. The tender process is now under way but it will be some time yet before the final outcome is known. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Rail Travel Concessions
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that under his proposals for the railways all those categories of persons currently enjoying privileged and concessionary travel facilities, in addition to British Rail staff will continue to enjoy those benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail introduced railcards as a commercial decision, not as a result of any legal obligation. There is every reason to believe that the private sector will introduce new initiatives in order to attract more passengers.

  However, the provision of the disabled persons railcard is a voluntary initiative on British Rail's part; it is not profitable. The Government wish to guarantee that common discount facilities for disabled people will continue in the future, and a requirement to this effect will be incorporated into every franchise agreement.

  British Rail Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the capital expenditure of British Rail annually from 1979 on(a) asset replacement, (b) new capital schemes and (c) other capital expenditure.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, a breakdown of investment between 1979 and 1991–92 is provided in the table.
  417
  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude changes in advance payments on rolling stock orders.

  2. Infrastructure Revenue Investment is expenditure on infrastructure renewal charged to profit and loss account, exclusive of track renewals.

  3. Other non-rail figures for 1979 and 1980 exclude ships, harbours, hovercraft and hotels.

  4. Figures rounded to nearest million.

  Public Transport
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons have been employed in public transport in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland in each year since 1981 by (i) bus services, (ii) train services, (iii) maritime ferry services and (iv) other public transport services.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 17 February 1993]: Information is not available in the form requested. Figures that are available appear in the annual publications "Scottish Transport Statistics" and "Bus and Coach Statistics).

  The tables gives the number of staff employed by bus and coach operators based in Scotland, by Scotrail, and by Strathclyde passenger transport executive—underground.

  Staff employed in public transport

  Bus and coach1 2

  Scotrail3

  Strathclyde passenger transport executive—under-ground

  1981

  22,200

  1981

  17,887

  1981–82

  308

  1982

  21,300

  1982

  16,999

  1982–83

  316

  1983

  21,700

  1983

  16,493

  1983–84

  311

  1984

  21,300

  1984–85

  15,798

  1984–85

  308

  1985–86

  20,300

  1985–86

  15,272

  1985–86

  317

  1986–87

  20,400

  1986–87

  14,610

  1986–87

  316

  1987–88

  20,100

  1987–88

  13,650

  1987–88

  321

  1988–89

  19,600

  1988–89

  12,908

  1988–89

  322

  1989–90

  19,800

  1989–90

  11,108

  1989–90

  327

  1990–91

  19,200

  1990–91

  10,926

  1990–91

  315

  1991–92

  19,200

  1991–92

  9,500

  1991–92

  310

  1Figures for 1985–86 and 1986–87 are annual averages; for all other years they relate to the year end.

  2Figures are approximate, as only a sample of the smaller bus and coach operators is surveyed.

  3 From 1984–85 onwards, figures relate to 31 March.

  Figures are not available for maritime ferry services and air transport.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Computer-assisted Transcription
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will publish the cost of(a) implementing computer-assisted transcription in the crown courts, the High Court and the Court of Appeal since March 1988, including training costs and (b) introducing tape recording as a means of taking official records in the crown courts, the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the same period.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of implementing(a) computer aided transcription—CAT—and (b) of introducing tape recordings in the Supreme Court, under the court reporting contracts in place since June 1988, was met by contractors under the terms of their contracts and the information is not available to my Department.

  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 December 1992 my Department paid £753,450·79 in training grants to
  418
  contractors. This sum related almost entirely to the training of CAT operators to assist the contractors in meeting the terms of their contracts, but it is not possible to isolate the exact amount.

  The cost of the new tape recording equipment presently being installed in the crown court and comined court centres, together with the cost of tapes over the first year, is £833,000. This sum also includes the cost of some additional county court equipment.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Parliamentary Sceretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is his Department's policy in respect of supporting computer-assisted transcriptions as a method of keeping offical shorthand records of proceedings in court;

  (2) what policy changes have taken place within his Department in relation to the use of verbatim reporters using computer-assisted transcription for recording proceedings in law courts from 1 March 1992 until 14January;

  (3) what was the basis for his decision to reduce the number of law courts designated as computer-assisted transcription courts between 1988 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department's policy is that CAT should be retained as a court reporting method, but that it should be directed to those courtrooms where its potential attributes, in terms of the speed of delivery of accurate transcript and information technology might be best utilised.

  There have been no changes in policy between 1 March 1992 and 14 January 1993. The present court reporting contracts expire on 31 March 1993. In establishing the requirement for CAT in the new contracts, the Department has taken into account the experience gained over the past four years. CAT will be required at courts hearing the most lengthy and complex cases and from which the greatest demand for transcripts arise. In addition, contractors are not barred from using CAT in other courtrooms if they wish.

  The new contracts provide for CAT in 179 courtrooms at 35 court centres. The Royal Courts of Justice and the Central Criminal Court will continue to have CAT in every courtroom which currently has CAT.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Disclosure of Information
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the Acts of Parliament affecting public scrutiny of the civil service and prohibiting disclosure of information which he is reviewing.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 2 November 1992,Official Report, column 55.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to increase the release of information to Parliament hitherto regarded as confidential for reasons of national security.
  419
  Mr. Waldegrave
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the House on 6 May 1992, this Government are committed to greater openness and to removing unnecessary secrecy. In pursuit of this policy objective, the Government continue to review records which have a bearing on national security with the purpose of identifying material which can safely be released. There will, however, remain matters relating to security and intelligence on which it is difficult to comment without revealing, by what is said or not said, information that can have a bearing on the effectiveness of the security and intelligence services and the safety of their staff.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were on rule 43 in prisons in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland on 12 February.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the number of males and females—both adults and young persons—removed from association under rule 43 of the prison rules and rule 46 of the young offender institution rules on 12 February, in prison service establishments in England and Wales.

  Rule 43/46 Own protection

  Rule 43/46 Good order and discipline

  Total

  Males

  1,570

  241

  1,811

  Females

  22

  7

  29

  Total

  1,592

  248

  1,840

  The table does not include inmates in designated vulnerable prisoner units where ruled 43 and 46 restrictions do not apply.

  Responsibility for prisons elsewhere in the United Kingdom rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Offences on Bail
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number and percentage of persons found guilty of further offences whilst on bail in each police force in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Although information is not collected centrally on the number of persons found guilty of further offences while on bail, research findings based on samples of a limited size offer an indication of the percentage of persons convicted of an offence while on court bail. For 1981, the Home Office survey "Estimates of offending by those on bail"—statistical bulletin 22/81—offers a national figure of 9 per cent. Between 1986 and 1988, surveys in four police force areas indicated that the percentage of persons given bail by the courts who were convicted of an offence committed while they were on bail ranged between 8 and 12 per cent. A survey by Northumbria police in 1989 gave a higher figure of 17 per cent., but this included offences "taken into consideration" by the courts or dealt with by formal caution—Morgan P., 1992, "Offending while on bail: a survey of recent studies." Home Office, RPU 65.

  Re-offenders
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number and percentage of persons found guilty of further offences subsequent to(a) a term of imprisonment and (b) a non-custodial sentence in each police force area in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  This information is not available. Regular reconviction studies are made, but these are based on relatively small samples and estimates of reconviction rates by police force area are not made. The most recent estimates of national reconviction rates were published in "Prison Statistics 1990".

  Security Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish, in any form that does not jeopardise national security, the approximate total number of files accessible by the name of the individual and held by the security service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is not possible to disclose such details without jeopardising the service's operational capability.

  Wolds Prison (Escape)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the circumstances leading to the escape of a prisoner from Wolds prison on 9 February while he was being escorted for treatment at Hull royal infirmary.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prisoner was taken to Hull royal infirmary on the evening of 9 February. He apparently had difficulty in walking and a wheelchair was used to taken him into the hospital. His handcuffs were removed for the examination and treatment. This is usual practice, particularly where, as here, X-rays are taken. On completion, the Wolds staff went to reapply the handcuffs prior to escorting him back to their vehicle. But before they could do so the prisoner ran through the doors, out of the hospital and along the road. The staff gave chase but lost him. Police were contacted immediately and he was rearrested the following night. An internal inquiry was mounted to review procedures. The Home Office controller was kept informed of events from the start.

  Prison Escorts (Escapes)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many escapes there have been from prison escort in each of the last 12 months; and how many of these escapes were from(a) cellular vehicles and (b) hired taxis.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There have been 124 escapes from escort incidents involving 146 prisoners.

  Monthly breakdown

  Incidents

  Prisoners

  February 1992

  8

  8

  March

  13

  15

  April

  9

  9

  May

  5

  6

  June

  10

  12

  July

  10

  12

  421

  Monthly breakdown

  Incidents

  Prisoners

  August

  8

  9

  September

  12

  13

  October

  9

  13

  November

  19

  19

  December

  10

  16

  January 1993

  11

  14

  Total

  124

  146

  (a) There were no escapes from cellular vehicles during this period.

  (b) There were seven prisoners who escaped from hired taxis during this period.

  Number

  February 1992

  1

  April 1992

  1

  June 1992

  3

  January 1993

  2

  Total

  7

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government expect to abolish prison department custodial remands for 15 and 16-year-olds.

  Mr. Jack
  We aim to end the remand of 15 and 16-year-old boys to prison custody as soon as enough places in local authority secure accommodation are available. The necessary plans are being forwarded through the Department of Health with the aim of completing them by the end of 1995.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles held in custody on remand or after conviction have in each of the last five years(a) committed suicide or (b) been recorded as having attempted self-mutilation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is set out in the table. Both sentenced and unsentenced juveniles are included. Figures for the incidence of deliberate self-harm prior to 1991 are not available.

  Acts of deliberate self-harm by prisoners aged under 17 in HM prison service establishments 1988–921

  Acts of deliberate self-harm

  Year

  Not causing death

  Causing death

  1988

  N/A

  —

  1989

  N/A

  —

  1990

  N/A

  2

  1991

  59

  1

  1992

  100

  1

  1 17-year-old prisoners were not regarded as juveniles until the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into effect on 1 October 1992.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies he has for reducing the disruption to education, training and work to those juveniles who are in custody.
  422
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I do not accept that there will be disruption to the education, training and work of juveniles in custody.

  I am confident that, where changes take place as a result of the competitive tendering exercise, prison governors and the contractors will arrange a smooth transition from the current to the new education provider so as to ensure an effective continuation in the delivery of education services.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile offenders received custodial sentences in 1979, in 1981 and in 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on persons aged 14 and under 17 sentenced to immediate custody is published annually in the Command Paper "Criminal statistics, England and Wales". Table 7.15 of the 1989 publication gives the requested data back to 1979. Copies of this publication are available in the Library. 1992 data will not be available until the autumn of 1993.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles(a) under 15 years of age and (b) between 15 and 17 years of age committed offences (i) after a police caution, (ii) while on bail, (iii) while on remand in local authority accommodation and (iv) while undergoing non-custodial community penalties, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  This information is not available. The number of people who commit offences cannot be measured. Research studies of those convicted for offences are made and published from time to time by the Home Office. The most relevant estimates—Home Office statistical bulletin 20/92—are that 11 per cent. of those aged under 14 and 16 per cent. of those aged 14 to 16 who had been cautioned in 1985 were convicted of standard list offences within two years of their caution.

  Mrs. Rushina Begum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision is going to be taken over the application of Mrs. Rushina Begum—ref. R258995/5 (S) and PO 25725/92—to join her husband in the United Kingdom following the submission of further evidence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A telex authorising the issue of an entry clearance to Mrs. Rushina Begum to join her husband in the United Kingdom was sent on 16 February to the high commission in Dhaka.

  Police (Discipline)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police retired on sickness grounds while disciplinary action involving them was under consideration in the most recent year for which the information is available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1991, 19 police officers retired after disciplinary charges had been brought against them, but before those charges had been heard. It is not known how many of those retirements were on medical grounds; nor is it known how many officers retired while disciplinary action was under consideration but before charges had been brought.

  Official Secrets Act 1989
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to repeal section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

  Mr. Jack
  There are no plans to amend the Official Secrets Act 1989.

  Members of Parliament
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals for a reduction in the number of hon. Members from 651 to 450.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government have no plans to make a reduction in the number of hon. Members of this House.

  Rape
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the number of reported offences of rape and indecent assault on women in England and Wales for the year 1979 and for the most recent year for which he has information; and what are the figures for Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information relates to recorded offences and is given in the table.

  These figures may reflect increased reporting by victims and/or changes in police recording practices.

  Notifiable offences of rape and indecent assault on a female recorded by the police

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  1979

  1991

  Nottinghamshire

  Rape

  28

  111

  Indecent assault on female

  553

  642

  England and Wales

  Rape

  1,170

  4,045

  Indecent assault on female

  11,834

  15,792

  Miss Carolyn Nunez
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 24 January from the hon. Member for South Hams regarding the application by Miss Carolyn Nunez for her British citizenship to be reinstated.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have written to my hon. Friend today about the outcome of this application.

  Police, Plumstead
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1), pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 630, what are the current and proposed numbers of uniformed constables in the Plumstead division of the Metropolitan police;

  (2), pursuant to his answer of 10 February, Official Report, column 630, what was the number of uniformed police officers in the Plumstead division of the Metropolitan police for each of the years 1991, 1992, and proposed for 1993, broken down by rank.
  424
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: The information is as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Chief superintendent

  1

  1

  1

  Superintendent

  1

  1

  1

  Chief inspector

  2

  2

  2

  Inspector

  10

  9

  9

  Sergeant

  40

  37

  37

  Constable

  209

  204

  194

  Although the total number of uniformed constables is due to reduce during the current year, an equivalent increase in civilian staff will release police officers at present in support posts. As a result, the number of constables available for operational duties will be unchanged.

  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 286, what representations he has now received about the number of police officers in the Plumstead and Greenwich divisions of the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: The following have now written to my right hon. and learned Friend:

  the chairman and Secretary of the Greenwich Police/Community Consultative Group:

  Mrs. Grace Sole of Charlton;

  Mr. Roy Martin of Eltham, the Chairman of the Courtlands Residents Association;

  the Chairman of the Eltham Police/Community Working Group;

  the Secretary of the Woolwich Central Baptist Church;

  and the Warden of Trinity College.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has also received letters from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) enclosing correspondence from the chairman and secretary of the Greenwich Police/Community Consultative Group; and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) enclosing correspondence from the chairman of the Greenwich Police—Greenwich Sector Working Group.

  Sex Discrimination Act
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals for the repeal of section 23(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, as subsequently amended, or of section 25(1) of the same Act; and what assessment he has made of the proposed consequences of repeal.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has the matter of sex discrimination in the provision of school places under consideration.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will list those articles, protocols and declarations relating to titles II, III and IV of the treaty of European union as adopted at Maastricht from which no rights and obligations arise which need to be given effect in domestic law.
  425
  The Attorney-General
  The articles and protocols relating to titles II, III and IV of the treaty of European union amend the Community treaties.

  Any amendment to the Bill which, by preventing incorporation of a treaty provision into our domestic law, makes it impossible for the United Kingdom to implement its Community obligations would cause us to regard ourselves as unable to ratify the treaty; and would mean that, if we did ratify, we should be in breach of our treaty obligations as soon as the treaty came into effect.

  As a general principle, it is important to preserve consistency between our domestic law and Community law as it is applicable to the United Kingdom. This is best achieved by following the United Kingdom's consistent legislative practice of incorporating in domestic law not only all amendments to the Community treaties but any protocols annexed to those treaties.

  The Government therefore continue to oppose deletion of the social protocol from the proposed revised list of Community treaties in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. But since the social protocol expressly states that acts adopted under the agreement of the other 11 member states shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom, its deletion would not render the United Kingdom incapable of fulfilling its obligations under the treaty of union and would not, therefore, prevent ratification.

  Some amendments may add domestic procedures when implementing the treaty obligations. Some protocols may relate only to a particular member state. In such cases, the Government would have to examine carefully whether, if the Bill were amended, our law would still be consistent with our international obligations. But provided this condition were met, amendments in these categories would not be fatal to ratification.

  Application of these principles will, I think, make it clear into which category particular amendments fall. If it is not clear how to apply these principles to a particular amendment I am willing to examine the matter carefully and give the House further advice on that amendment.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of cases referred to the Crown prosecution service in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) July to June 1992 resulted in (i) prosecution and (ii) conviction, in each offence category.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  Records are not maintained by the Crown prosecution service of outcomes in relation to offence categories. Percentage calculations of the number of cases prosecuted and the number resulting in a conviction cannot be given on a fully consistent basis for the periods requested. A revised system of data collection was introduced in April 1991 which makes comparison of figures before and after that date inappropriate. The figures in the tables relate to the number of defendants whose cases were handled in the 31 areas of the Crown prosecution service, but do not include specialist casework undertaken at the head-quarters of the service.

  In table one, in respect of magistrates courts, column 1 shows the number of defendant cases received; column 2 shows the number which proceeded to a full hearing and disposal in the magistrates courts; and column 3 shows the number which resulted in conviction.
  426

  Table one—Magistrates Courts

  Column 1 Received

  Column 2 Hearings

  Column 3 Convicted

  1990

  1,638,751

  1,136,235

  1,107,444

  1991

  1,575,021

  1,078,006

  1,051,362

  July 1991 to June 1992

  1,563,686

  1,045,279

  1,019,615

  The number of cases received during a particular period does not equal the number finalised in that period, as incomplete cases are carried over from period to period. Cases which have not been included in the total proceeding to a full hearing and disposal in the magistrates courts include cases committed to the Crown court for trial, cases discontinued, cases resulting in a bind over, cases adjourned sine die, and cases in which the defendant could not be traced. Also not included in column 2 are cases submitted by the police for advice only and some non-criminal proceedings, such as forfeitures under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

  In table two, in respect of Crown court cases, column 1 shows the number of cases received; column 2 shows the number of cases which proceeded to a full hearing; and column 3 shows the number which resulted in a conviction.

  Table two

  Crown court

  Column 1 Received

  Column 2 Hearings

  Column 3 Convicted

  1990

  152,199

  105,516

  96,790

  1991

  153,652

  106,026

  97,114

  July 1991 to June 1992

  151,603

  105,373

  96,596

  Cases not included in the total proceeding to a full hearing in the Crown court include cases in which no evidence was offered, cases in which all charges were left on file, cases resulting in a bind over, and cases in which the defendant could not be traced or was found unfit to plead. Also not included in column 2 are cases committed to the Crown court for sentence, and appeals.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministers' Homes
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister in how many cases improvements made at public expense in the past five years to the private homes of Ministers, for reasons of personal security, have not been used wholly or mainly for those purposes.

  The Prime Minister
  I am aware of no such case. Since November 1990, responsibility for the provision of security measures for public figures at threat from terrorist attack has rested with the Home Office. Before November 1990, the provision of security measures was the responsibility of the accounting officer advised by the police and the relevant departmental security officer.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister how many houses or buildings attached to homes belonging to Ministers or their families which have been converted or improved at public expense for reasons of personal security have been the subject of professional fee payments out of public money in the last five years.

  The Prime Minister
  Where security measures are provided at public expense to a person at threat from
  427
  terrorist attack, professional fees will be paid if this offers the best value for money. It is not possible to identify every case where such fees have been paid.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out those matters in regard to exports to Iraq on which Ministers are prepared to give substantive answers while the Scott inquiry is sitting.

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Justice Scott has terms of reference which allow him to look into all the issues which he regards as relevant to his inquiry. Ministers will continue to answer substantive questions where to do so would not prejudice the issues being investigated by the inquiry.

  Law and Order
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to transfer responsibility for law and order concerns within Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government always keep departmental distribution of functions under review.

  Polly Peck
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister what activities were undertaken in northern Cyprus and the east Mediterranean directly or indirectly by Polly Peck for the United Kingdom Government between 1985 and 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware of any such activities having been undertaken. A full trawl of all Government Departments and agencies could not be carried out without incurring disproportionate cost.

  N M Rothschild
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the work obtained and the fees paid to N M Rothschild in the course of the Government's privatisation programme since 1983.

  The Prime Minister
  The table shows the Government appointments made to N M Rothschild in privatisations since 1983. The fees paid are a matter of commercial confidentiality. Appointments for adviser to the Government are made following full competition. The Government's consistent practice has been to select the firm offering the best value for money.

  N M Rothschild privatisation appointments

  Privatisation

  Year

  Appointment

  BT

  1984

  Underwriter

  Britoil

  1985

  Underwriter

  British Gas

  1986

  Adviser to Government Underwriter

  Royal Ordnance

  1987

  Adviser to Government

  British Airways

  1987

  Underwriter

  Rolls-Royce

  1987

  Underwriter

  BAA

  1987

  Underwriter

  British Petroleum

  1987

  Adviser to Government Underwriter

  British Steel

  1988

  Underwriter

  Water

  1989

  Underwriter

  Regional Electricity Companies

  1990

  Underwriter

  BT

  1991

  Member of French syndicate

  428

  Privatisation

  Year

  Appointment

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  ongoing

  Adviser to Government

  British Coal

  ongoing

  Adviser to Government

  Matrix Churchill Trial
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 472, how much of the evidence of the key witness was given in response to questions which referred to the disclosed documents.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: As I indicated in my answer of 4 February, I suggest matters relevant to the Matrix Churchill trial should await the outcome of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister how he intends to monitor the commitment of the Prime Minister of India to respect human rights in Kashmir.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 February 1993]: During my visit, I encouraged the Indian Prime Minister to allow international human rights organisations and others to visit Kashmir. We shall continue to monitor the situation through our high commission in Delhi, through our contacts with human rights organisations and through media reports. We shall continue to raise human rights issues with the Indian Government.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions of European legislation govern the introduction of a 5 per cent. VAT rate of goods and services now(a) exempt, (b) zero rated and (c) subject to the standard rate.

  Sir John Cope
  Article 1(1) of Council directive 92/77/EEC adopted on 19 October 1992, replacing article 12(3) of the sixth VAT directive 77/388/EEC, provides for reduced rates of VAT, of not less than 5 per cent., which may be applied to goods and services in a list annexed to the directive, regardless of their current VAT rating.

  In addition, article 1(4)(b) of 92/77/EEC, replacing article 28(2) of 77/388/EC provides for the application of a reduced rate, of not less than 5 per cent., to goods and services which at 1 January 1991 were subject to a zero rate in accordance with Community law.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional revenue would be obtained by applying VAT at a level of(a) 5 per cent. and (b) 17.5 per cent., to each of (a) food, (b) children's clothes and shoes, (c) public transport, (d) energy, (e) newspapers and (f) books.

  Sir John Cope
  Table D1 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement" shows the estimated cost of the main VAT zero rates. These estimates suggest the following yields:
  429

  £billion

  5 per cent.

  17.5 per cent.

  (a) Food

  2.0

  7.0

  (b) Children's clothes and shoes

  0.2

  0.6

  (c) Passenger transport

  0.5

  1.9

  (d) Domestic fuel and power

  0.5

  1.8

  (e) Books, newspapers and magazines

  0.3

  1.1

  The estimates make no allowance for the behavioural responses to applying VAT to these categories, so that actual yield would probably be less than suggested.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the level of sales of local newspapers of the imposition of a standard rate of VAT on newspapers.

  Sir John Cope
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated an own price elasticity of –0.657 for all leisure goods, which include newspapers. This elasticity suggests that a 17i per cent. increase in price would reduce demand, in volume terms, by around 10 per cent.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many farmers and other eligible producers have registered for the VAT flat-rate scheme for farmers.

  Sir John Cope
  The flat rate scheme for farmers started on 1 January. Up to 17 February, 85 certificates had been issued to persons opting to join the scheme.

  Trade Union Subscriptions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the administrative savings and the tax expenditure if trade union subscriptions were paid net of tax with block credit of tax directly to trade unions;

  (2) if he will estimate how many trades union members (a) obtain and (b) are eligible for tax relief on their subscriptions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that 63,000 people are receiving relief through their PAYE code numbers for that part of a subscription to a trade union which is attributable to the provision of superannuation, life insurance or funeral benefits. The information required to estimate the number of union members eligible for the relief and the potential tax cost of moving to a relief by deduction system is not available. The cost of setting up and operating a scheme of relief by deduction cannot be estimated with sufficient certainty to establish whether net administrative savings would result.

  Bank Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will propose legislation under which the auditors of all banks regulated under the Banking Act 1987 would be appointed by the regulatory body.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no plans to do so.

  Green Pound
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of the departure of sterling from the exchange rate mechanism on the value of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.
  430
  Mr. Portillo
  Since sterling left the exchange rate mechanism, the green pound has devalued by 1786 per cent. against the green ecu.

  Tax Income
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the Government's tax income currently goes on(a) servicing debt, (b) unemployment benefit and its administration and (c) other transfer payments.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the breakdown of general Government receipts shown in table 3.10 of the 1992 "Autumn Statement", Cm. 2096; to the breakdown of general Government expenditure shown [n tables 2.5 and 2.6 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement", Cm. 2219; and to the figures for unemployment benefit administration in figure 27 of the "Social Security Departmental Report", Cm. 2213.

  Revenue Expenditure
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the Government's current revenue expenditure goes on(a) servicing debt, (b) unemployment benefit and its administration and (c) other transfer payments.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the breakdown of general Government expenditure shown in tables 2.5 and 2.6 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement", Cm. 2219; and to the figures for unemployment benefit administration in figure 27 of the "Social Security Departmental Report", Cm. 2213.

  Personal Sector Debt
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) of 10 February,Official Report, column 632, if he will give a regional breakdown of the levels of personal sector debt per £100 of disposable income for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  Regional figures for the level of personal sector debt outstanding are not available.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, for the latest available year, was the cost to his Department of expenditure in support of the royal family in respect of the central chancery of the orders of knighthood.

  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: Assuming that the right hon. Member wishes to update information contained in the 1990 report of the royal trustees—HC 629, October 1990—the comparable outturn for staff costs for 1991–92 was £201,000. In addition, the Treasury paid £364,000 mostly for the costs of the insignia themselves.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Prayers
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will bring forward proposals to arrange for Prayers to be moved from the Floor of the House to the Crypt and for questions to begin at half-past two o'clock.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  Annual Parliamentary Calendar
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he will be in a position to announce an annual parliamentary calendar.

  Mr. Newton
  I have already made progress towards giving the House greater notice of recess dates, having announced Easter recess dates on 26 November and the Whit recess dates on 4 February. How far it will prove possible to build further on this is of course linked with the discussions on the Jopling report to which I referred in an earlier reply today.

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hours have now been spent on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

  Mr. Newton
  Before today's proceedings, the House has spent 75 hours and 14 minutes on 11 days in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

  Annie's Bar
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what is his policy on the continued existence of Annie's Bar.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The Committee is at present undertaking an inquiry into refreshment services for the House of Commons. The functions of the various Refreshment Department facilities, including Annie's Bar, are being considered during that inquiry together with the possible provision of new services. The Committee hopes to report later this year.

  Visitors (Refreshment Facilities)
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what financial provision will be made for basic refreshment facilities for visitors.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The Committee is including consideration of the possible provision of refreshment facilities for line of route visitors in its current inquiry into refreshment services for the House of Commons. It is, therefore, too early to establish what financial provision might need to be made.

  Smoking
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what plans he has to review the policy regarding smoking in eating areas in the House.
  432
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The policy regarding smoking in the various Refreshment Department outlets is kept under consideration in the light of customer demand.

  Hair Dryers and Showers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) how many(a) hair dryers and (b) showers are planned to be installed in the Palace of Westminster and outbuildings occupied by House of Commons staff;

  (2) at whose request, and on whose authority, a hair dryer was installed in the ladies' wash room in 3 Dean's Yard; what was the cost of installing it; and under what budget the cost will fall.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  These are matters for the Director of Works.

  Wheelchair Members
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what arrangements are being made to help hon. Members confined to wheelchairs to work in the Chamber and offices in the House.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This matter is currently under consideration by the Accommodation and Works Committee in the context of a comprehensive survey on access for the disabled commissioned by its predecessor Committee.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans he has to facilitate the giving of blood by all those who work in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The north London centre of the blood transfusion service operates a two-day clinic in the Treasury once every six months when Members, their staff and staff of the House may give blood. The next planned visit is between 29 and 30 March. Arrangements for it may be made through the nursing sister.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what consideration is being given to proposals to increase the amount of car parking available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee is currently examining existing and future car parking requirements of this House and their regulation by the Serjeant at Arms. This inquiry will be able to consider the issue raised by the hon. Member.

  Payroll and Personnel System
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make a statement on the reasons for the introduction, and the budgeted and actual cost, of the new payroll and personnel system for House of Commons staff; and what savings he expects to be made in each of the next two years.

  Mr. Beith
  The new payroll and personnel system is being introduced to replace two separate systems, one of
  433
  which was introduced in 1984, and the other in 1988. The new system will provide additional personnel information and improved payroll analyses to facilitate the introduction of financial management systems within the House. It will also provide the facility for payroll and personnel records functions for the staff of the Parliamentary Works Directorate.

  Outline provision for hardware and software costs was made in the estimates for £130,000, excluding training costs and VAT, for the new system. The actual cost is expected to be slightly less than this figure. No direct staff savings are expected, but the new system will allow for an increase in the workload of some 15 per cent. as a result of the transfer to the House of the staff of the Parliamentary Works Directorate.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Package Travel Industry
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding his decision on the possible reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the Airtours plc bid for Owners Abroad plc.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I shall take a decision on whether to refer this proposed acquisition to the MMC in due course, following advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. When taking that decision, I shall take into account all relevant factors.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy regarding the concentration of ownership within the package travel industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The main, but not exclusive, consideration when assessing mergers in the travel industry, as in any other industry, is the likely impact of the merger on competition in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (I) if he will refer the Airtours bid for Owners Abroad to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of a successful bid by Airtours for Owners Abroad on consumer choice, value for money and employment within the United Kingdom travel industry; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what percentage of the market share Airtours would hold in the event of its bid for Owners Abroad being successful.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I shall take a decision on whether to refer this proposed acquisition to the MMC in due course. When taking that decision, I shall take into account all relevant factors.

  Details of current market share figures for the relevant markets in this case have been provided by a number of sources. Section 133(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 requires that information with respect to any particular business and obtained in this way should not be disclosed without the consent of the parties.

  Land Mine Exports
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on United Kingdom policy on the export of land mines.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 22 January setting out the Government's views on this matter. I have nothing further to add.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been granted for the export of land mines for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  Separate statistics are not maintained for land mines and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Land mines fall within heading ML4a of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992, which prohibits the export without a licence of a wide range of bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles and similar weapons.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had regarding the United States Government's embargo on the export of land mines.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1992,Official Report, column 593, on ECGD, what response he has received to the offer of voluntary redundancy; how many staff have chosen (a) early retirement, (b) redundancy, (c) transfer to other divisions of his Department and (d) to other departments in south Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The ECGD has issued a questionnaire to all its staff asking them to indicate their preferred options for location and continuity of employment. The objective is to establish the framework for an orderly run down in staff numbers over the next 12 months. The definitive position is unlikely to emerge for some months, but the early indications are that the desired run down will be achieved by wholly voluntary means.

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, columns 496–97, (a) what is his Department's (i) current estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (ii) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94, exclusive of energy and (b) what is his Department's energy-related expenditure, as to (1) current estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (2) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94.

  Mr. Eggar
  Estimated expenditure on publicity in 1992–931 is:

  £million

  Energy-related

  1.2

  Other

  7.0

  Central publicity budget.1

  435
  Allocations for 1993–94 will be made according to need during the year.

  Political Risk Insurance
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what short-term insurance or reinsurance is offered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to United Kingdom exporters to non-OECD countries to cover political risk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Since December 1991, the privatised successor of the insurance services group of the ECGD has assumed responsibility for the provision to United Kingdom exporters of short term export credit insurance previously provided by the ECGD.

  The new company currently sources over 90 per cent. of its reinsurance needs, for both commercial and political risk worldwide, from the private market. The ECGD participates in the company's reinsurance treaties so as to supplement the cover available from the market, thereby ensuring that the company's full needs are met. This transitional support will be available up to December 1994 in order to give time for the new company to arrange to source its full reinsurance requirements from the private market.

  Quite separately, the ECGD provides the new company with 100 per cent. reinsurance of the risks, largely political, arising on certain high risk markets for which no capacity is being made available by the private market. This facility is not time limited and, subject to satisfactory financial performance, it will continue for as long as the Government consider it essential to meet the reasonable needs of United Kingdom exporters.

  These arrangements are intended to ensure that United Kingdom exporters do not suffer any reduction in export credit insurance facilities as a result of the privatisation.

  EC Funds
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to have Merseyside included in objective 1 status by the European Community; what estimates he has made of assistance towards infrastructure, industrial development and training that such status would confer on Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) on 17 February 1993,Official Report, column 269. It is too early to estimate the amount of financial assistance which objective 1 status would confer on Merseyside. This would depend on the Council's decisions on the extent of objective 1 regions elsewhere and on the criteria for the distribution of the funds between objective 1 regions. The Council will not decide which areas will become eligible for several months.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a breakdown of the daily financial effect on British Nuclear Fuels of the delay in the commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the company.

  Office of Telecommunications
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the successor to Sir Bryan Carsberg as director general of Oftel.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have today appointed Mr. Don Cruickshank as Director General of Telecommunications from 1 April.

  Mr. Cruickshank has had a varied and successful career in business. He was managing Director of Virgin Group plc from 1984–89 and before that, Commercial Director at Times Newspapers from 1977–80 and a Director of the Information and Entertainment Division of Pearson plc from 1980–84. Since 1989 he has been Chief executive of the national health service in Scotland, where he has done excellent work.

  Since the privatisation of BT in 1984 the telecommunications industry has changed substantially and since the further liberalisation set in train by the Duopoly review in 1991, there has been an increasing number of operators entering the market in competition with BT. I wished to appoint someone to this important post who had direct experience of competition as a businessman. Mr. Cruickshank fulfils that criterion admirably and will, I am sure, do a very good job.

  Since Sir Bryan Carsberg became Director General of Fair Trading in June 1992, Bill Wigglesworth, the then deputy director general of Oftel, has been acting as Director General and I would like to pay tribute to the sterling way in which he has carried out his duties. He will return to his position as deputy director from 1 April.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prisons
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the manning level of prison officers in(a) Crumlin Road, (b) the Maze, (c) Maghaberry and (d) Magilligan, for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Mates
  The table shows the manning levels of prison officers at these prisons since 1990:

  Average staff in post

  Prison

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Belfast

  667

  683

  716

  Maze

  1,148

  1,107

  1,037

  Maghaberry

  583

  596

  620

  Magilligan

  495

  492

  495

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to introduce the national vocational qualifications into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Northern Ireland has been involved in the development of national vocational qualifications—NVQs —from their inception in 1986. NVQs have been available in Northern Ireland since that date as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as they have been developed by the awarding and validating bodies.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on education in each of the prisons in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mates
  The table shows a breakdown, prison by prison, of the expenditure on education, including staff costs, over the last five years:

  Belfast

  Maze

  Maghaberry

  Magilligan

  YOC Hydebank

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1988–89

  117,000

  259,000

  110,000

  93,000

  137,000

  1989–90

  118,500

  274,500

  144,000

  91,500

  134,000

  1990–91

  117,000

  267,500

  235,000

  111,000

  189,500

  1991–92

  153,000

  290,000

  215,000

  140,000

  232,000

  1992–93

  127,000

  345,000

  202,000

  118,000

  216,000

  All figures are to the nearest £500.

  Claimants, Newry and Armagh
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of claimants in each ward within the constituency of Newry and Armagh, or such relevant statistics as are available, who are in receipt of(a) unemployment benefit, (b) income support, (c) family credit, (d) disability living allowance and (e) child benefit.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 19 February 1993:
  As I am responsible for Social Security operational matters your recent Parliamentary Question on the number of claimants in each ward within the constituency of Newry and Armagh who are in receipt of Unemployment Benefit, Income Support, Family Credit, Disability Living Allowance and Child Benefit has been passed to me for reply.
  I regret that the information is not available in the format requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  Some information however, is available on Unemployment Benefit and Income Support for the Newry and Armagh Social Security Office areas and this is set out below.

  Date of most recent information

  Benefit claimed or received

  Total number of customers claiming each benefit in Newry Social Security Office area

  Total number of customers claiming each benefit in Armagh Social Security Office area

  14 January 1993

  Unemployment Benefit

  5,396

  2,717

  30 November 1992

  Income Support

  10,894

  5,612

  438
  I hope you find this information helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Rreport and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Bus and Goods Vehicle Licences
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his review of the conditions of the issuing of operators licences for buses and goods vehicles in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Because of the increasing differences between the operator licensing regimes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment undertook a review of the Northern Ireland licensing system. Consultation with all interested parties was carried out in 1992 and the main recommendations of the review report were generally welcomed. Implementation of these recommendations would have significant resource implications and I am considering the way forward.

  Buses
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new buses have been purchased for public use in Northern Ireland over the past three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am advised by the managing director of Ulsterbus Ltd./Citybus Ltd. that the companies purchased 246 new buses over the past three years. None of the other operators of stage carriage services in Northern Ireland purchased any new buses in that period.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many public service buses have been found unroadworthy following inspection carried out by the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland over the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested has been recorded only since September 1992, since when 114 buses have been examined of which 15 were found to be unroadworthy.

  Fair Employment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a statistical breakdown of employment in the various sectors of the Belfast education and library board in keeping with the 1991 census of the Belfast area as they reflect the percentages of Protestants and Roman Catholics employed.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: The information is as follows:
  439

  Belfast education and library board staff (January 1992)

  Section

  Total number of staff 1

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non determined

  Number

  Per cent. of 1

  Number

  Per cent. of 1

  Number

  Per cent. of 1

  Administration

  45

  26

  57·78

  16

  35·56

  3

  6·66

  Architects

  40

  19

  47·50

  18

  45·00

  3

  7·50

  Education

  106

  58

  54·72

  41

  38·68

  7

  6·60

  Finance

  97

  52

  53·61

  37

  38·14

  8

  8·29

  Library—HQ (includes Administration and Technical staff)

  112

  62

  55·36

  42

  37·50

  8

  7·14

  —Branches

  88

  41

  46·59

  39

  44·32

  8

  9·09

  School Based (Non Teaching)

  2,552

  1,224

  47·96

  1,130

  44·28

  198

  7·76

  FE (Non Teaching)

  360

  223

  61·94

  109

  30·28

  28

  7·78

  FE (Teaching—Permanent)

  594

  321

  54·04

  198

  33·33

  75

  12·63

  3,994

  2,026

  50·73

  1,630

  40·81

  338

  8·46

  Source:—Belfast Education and Library Board's Fair Employment Review

  The 1991 labour force survey revealed that in the Belfast education and library board area 53.2 per cent. of the economically active population was Protestant, and 46.8 per cent. was Roman Catholic.

SCOTLAND

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what services are made available to GPs who are(a) non-fund holding and (b) fund holders.

  Mr. Stewart
  The range of services made available by national health service provider units to general practitioners does not vary according to whether or not they are fund holders. Rather than relying on the health board's purchasing arrangements, GP fund holders are able to use their funds to purchase the following hospital and community health services directly from providers:

  —a specified range of elective surgical procedures;

  —most out-patient treatments and diagnostic tests;

  —certain specified direct access services;

  and from 1 April 1993:

  —certain community nursing services;

  —additional direct access services;

  —most out patient mental health treatments.

  In respect of these services GP fund holders are required to work within their overall fund as approved by the health board, but are otherwise not constrained by any limitation on the funds available to a health board for referrals for these services.

  In addition from 1 April 1993 as announced by my noble Friend, the Minister of State on 26 January, GP fund holders, where appropriate and qualified and with the prior approval of the health board, will be able to be reimbursed from their fund for providing certain specific diagnostic and minor surgical procedures for their patients.

  Nimmo Smith/Friel Report
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy and a transcript of a tape involving the Sun newspaper and a lawyer submitted as evidence to the Nimmo Smith/Friel inquiry and copies of letters to the Lord Advocate of 4 and 12 February relating to the Nimmo Smith/Friel report and the replies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  World Summit for Children
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase resource allocations for the areas of clean water and sanitation and basic education, in the light of agreements made at the world summit for children.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply of 15 February 1993 at columns 43–44.

  United Kingdom Food Support
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people in(a) Somalia and (b) Eritrea are now estimated to be receiving daily food support from the United Kingdom; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since January 1992, we have pledged 48,100 tonnes of bilateral food aid worth £7,798,000 to Somalia and 17,596 tonnes worth £3,829,000 to Eritrea. It has all been delivered. Bilateral food aid is channelled through the World Food Programme, the International Committee of the Red Cross and British non-governmental organisations who distribute it according to need: actual numbers of those receiving food financed by the United Kingdom are not readily available.

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Kenya of the Minister for Overseas Development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: During her visit to Kenya my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development met President Moi and other Kenyan leaders for discussions on a range of political and economic issues, including aid. She also visited a drought-affected district in the north-east to see relief and rehabilitation work, and pledged a further £750,000 to help drought victims in the Turkana region.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many convoys carrying humanitarian aid to Sarajevo and other towns in Bosnia Herzegovina by road have had as their point of departure(a) Belgrade and (b) Split; what have been the total quantities of supplies transported in each case; how many air-relief flights have delivered such aid; and what has been the quantity transported.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: Exact figures for the number of road convoys which have travelled into Bosnia Herzegovina are not available. However, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who is co-ordinating the international community's response to this crisis estimates that over 57,000 tonnes of relief supplies have been delivered by road to Bosnia Herzegovina since July 1992. This consists approximately of 22,000 tonnes delivered from Split and Zagreb; 3,550 tonnes from Belgrade; and 31,900 tonnes from Metkovic (which is now used as the principal depot for convoys into Bosnia from the south, and which is supplied from Split and Ploce).

  In addition a total of 2,646 relief flights have been made, delivering 29,098 tonnes of humanitarian relief; all of these were to Sarajevo.

  Croatia
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what avenues are in use for sending humanitarian aid in postal packages to United Nations-protected zones in Croatia, including the routes employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: We are not aware of any suitable avenues for delivering humanitarian aid to United Nations protected zones in Croatia by post. We have recommended that people wishing to assist should do so through established charities operating in the former Yugoslavia.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Rugby League
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has made to remove restrictions placed on Rugby League players; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  As the hon. Member will be aware, sports organisations in this country are independent bodies which are free to lay down their own rules and regulations.I therefore have no plans to intervene in this matter. However I welcome the recent introduction of the 'free gangway" system which allows rugby players to play both codes at amateur level and for clubs to share facilities, and hope that rugby authorities will do their utmost to ensure its effective implementation.

  BBC (Funding)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what arrangements he has made to consult representatives of elderly people on the future funding of the BBC.
  442
  Mr. Brooke
  We have sent a copy of the consultation document about the future of the BBC, which asks questions about future funding, to four organisations representing elderly people, and have asked for their views. We welcome views from other organisations representing the elderly, as well as from interested individual viewers and listeners.

  Government Art Collection
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will ensure that art treasures in the charge of Her Majesty's Government will be retained.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the question from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott).

  Tourism
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to meet the chairman of the British Tourist Authority to discuss the future of tourism in Great Britain.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Tourist Authority to discuss the future of tourism in Great Britain.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. I expect to discuss the authority's corporate plan with the chairman when it is submitted in the spring.

  North West Tourist Board
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to meet the chairperson of the North West tourist board to discuss funding for that body.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend plans to visit the North West tourist board within the next few months. The allocation of Government funds to the regional tourist boards is a matter for the English tourist board.

  Windsor Castle (Fire)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he is now in a position to announce the cost of the Windsor fire; and to which budgets the cost will fall.

  Mr. Brooke
  A very broad initial estimate of the costs of restoration suggests a figure in the range £30 to £40 million depending on the form of restoration chosen. More precise figures will not be available until decisions have been taken on the form of restoration.

  Fossils and Offshore Sites
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the protection of fossils and offshore sites.

  Mr. Key
  I informed the House on 7 December 1992 that I have accepted that natural history objects, including fossils, should be brought within our export controls. We
  443
  intend shortly to revise our national export controls in the Export of Goods (Control) Order to include skeletal remains and fossils, found in United Kingdom soil or territorial waters.

  Local Authority Arts Provision
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact of the current year's local government finance settlement on local authority arts provision.

  Mr. Brooke
  Most local authorities are still in the process of determining their budgets for 1993–94, so an overall assessment of planned local authority provision for the arts cannot yet be made. Arts provision is discretionary and it is for authorities themselves to fix its level. They must, of course, work within overall expenditure constraints. I hope that they will, nonetheless, continue to recognise the very real benefits of spending in support of the arts.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to visit West Yorkshire to discuss the provision of art and recreation with the leaders of the local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I will be visiting Leeds and Sheffield shortly. I also visited Leeds last October. My Department assists in the provision of art and recreation facilities through its grants-in-aid to the Arts Council and to the Sports Council, and through its business sponsorship incentive schemes for sport and the arts; in addition, it assists in the provision of sports and active recreational facilities through credit approval cover to local authorities.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the wider use of publicly owned sports facilities.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department has been involved in discussions with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils and the Sports Council about schedule 11 of the current Education Bill. This clarifies the legal position in relation to dual use joint management agreements and will facilitate the wider community use of school sports facilities.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the public library service in London.

  Mr. Key
  I have already initiated a major review of the public library service in England to provide a basis for its development up to and into the next century.

  Cycling Holidays
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information his Department has about the numbers of people who take cycling holidays in Britain each year.
  444
  Mr. Key
  The United Kingdom travel survey indicates the figure in 1991 for people who take holidays in Britain with the primary interest is cycling as 1 per cent. (approximately 0.58 million trips).

  However, 3 per cent. (around 1.74 million) of British tourists taking holidays in the same year stated they engaged in cycling as part of their leisure activities.

  Sport
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what public money has been allocated to sport in each of the past three years at 1993 prices; what is proposed for the coming year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department's direct funding of sport is its grant-in-aid to the Sports Council (Great Britain) and the Football Licensing Authority (FLA), and its support for the new business sponsorship scheme for sport, Sportsmatch.

  Grant-in-aid to the Sports Council (Great Britain) and to the FLA in the current and last two financial years, expressed in 1993–94 prices, are:

  £ million

  Sports Council (GB)

  FLA

  1990–91

  51.244

  0.125

  1991–92

  49.973

  0.775

  1992–93

  50.103

  0.822

  The grant-in-aid to each body in 1993–94 will be £50604 million and £0.9 million respectively.

  Sportsmatch was launched in the current year. I expect to provide £1–17 million in this financial year, and £3 million next year (cash prices).

  The Government also provide substantial support for local authority revenue spending on sport through the revenue support grant arrangements. Basic credit approvals amounting to £79 million (cash price) for local authority capital spending have also been provided between 1991–92 and 1993–94. Sport has also benefited through the Government's inner city programmes.

  It is also making available a total of £73 million (cash price) in support of Manchester's bid to host the Olympic Games in the year 2000.

  Furthermore, reductions in the rate of pool betting duty are contributing approximately £44 million (cash price) per year to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and to the Football Trust.

EDUCATION

  Religious Education
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will publish the National Curriculum Council's analysis of agreed syllabuses for religious education.

  Mr. Forth
  The decision to publish such documents is one for the National Curriculum Council.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications for each access fund have been made in each year since the establishment of the funds.
  445
  Mr. Boswell
  The information is not available in the form requested. Many institutions make no distinction between the three funds when considering applications. Others have considered applications from students on a termly or ad hoc basis, and therefore make more than one payment to individual students.

  From the available information it is estimated that the numbers of applications for the three funds which the Department has provided are as follows:

  Number

  1990–91

  116,000

  1991–92

  118,200

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what monitoring is conducted by his Department of the administration of student access funds.

  Mr. Boswell
  All institutions are required to account fully for their use of the access funds. Each is required to provide audited accounts, monitoring information and main uses reports for each year of operation of the funds.

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Crichton Roberts Ltd., (f) KPMG management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is as listed. No contracts were awarded in these periods to Crichton Roberts or Leopold Joseph.

  CONTRACTS AWARDED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1991–92

  KPMG

  (Total value £69,825)

  Customer Survey for the Teachers Pensions

  Agency Review of a Data Collection Processing System

  Identification of a Market Testing Programme for the DFE

  Coopers and Lybrand

  (Total value £29,300)

  Financial management survey at the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council

  Commitment audit and cash How verification

  Price Waterhouse

  (Total value £66,074)

  Capital equipment survey of equipment held in further education and sixth form colleges

  Financial management survey

  Touche Ross

  (Total value £144,595)

  Assistance in preparing colleges for independence from Local Authority control

  Tender budgeting and accounting methods

  Provision of operational research assistance

  Ernst and Young

  (Total value £66,765)

  Supply of telecommunications and distance working for the Department

  Financial management survey of Purchasing procedures

  FEFC relocation study

  446
  CONTRACTS AWARDED IN THE 12 MONTHS FROM 17 FEBRUARY 1992 TO 17 FEBRUARY 1993

  KPMG

  (Total value £63,750)

  Follow up work to the Customer Survey for the Teachers

  Pensions Agency

  Financial Management Review of Research Council contracts with other Government Departments

  Project Audit of the Pensions Administration System (PAS) for the Teachers Pensions Agency

  Coopers and Lybrand

  (Total value £1,446,750)

  Review of colleges preparations for independence

  Scoping study for IS Business and Consultancy Division

  Consultancy assistance to ISB Corporate Plan

  Financial management survey of the National Curriculum

  Council (NCC)

  Pensions Payments Opinions Review

  Open University review of part-time costs

  Price Waterhouse

  (Total value £75,454)

  Financial Consultancy Review

  Capital equipment survey of equipment held in further education and sixth form colleges

  Accountancy Review

  Touche Ross

  (Total value £55,342)

  Assistance on file storage, file retrieval and document retention

  Provision of operational research assistance

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education where he intends to hold conferences on grant-maintained status for schools; and if he will provide details of the target audience and costs, including the cost of publishing and distributing literature for those conferences.

  Mr. Forth
  Conferences for headteachers and governors of local education authority maintained schools are planned for Nottingham and Birmingham. The conference literature comprises a letter of invitation and a copy of the standard grant-maintained information pack. The unit cost of producing the information packs is 79p. Mailings of invitations and packs fall within the terms of the contract with the departmental despatch centre and therefore costs cannot be identified separately. The cost of conference accommodation and facilities is expected to be approximately £6,700 for each event. Specialised support services for each conference are likely to cost around £6,500. Further conferences will be held across the country to meet demand.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide a breakdown on the costs, including the cost of publication and distribution of promotional literature, of the "Going Grant-maintained Conference" held on 10 and 11 February in Newcastle.

  Mr. Forth
  The conference material for the two one-day events held in Newcastle comprised a letter of invitation and a copy of the standard grant-maintained information pack. Production costs of the information packs were approximately £2,600. The mailing of invitations and packs fell within the terms of the contract with the departmental despatch centre and distribution costs cannot be identified separately. The total costs for
  447
  conference accommodation and facilities were approximately £12,300. Specialised support services for the two conferences cost approximately £11,000.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the approved capital allocations for grant-maintained schools for the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is contained in the following tables. Table A lists those self-governing state schools (grant-maintained schools) operating as at

  Table A

  Grant-maintained school's capital bids 1993–94 allocations

  School

  Project

  £ thousand

  Avon

  Beechen Cliff

  Urgent drainage and subsidence prevention work

  139

  Oldfield

  2 new science laboratories and preparation rooms

  200

  Barnet

  Hendon

  Extension and provision of additional science technology and maths facilities

  420

  Bedfordshire

  Manshead High

  Replace oil with gas central heating system

  110

  Queensbury

  Improvements to science and technology facilities

  120

  Berkshire

  Denefield

  New science laboratory

  55

  The Downs

  New laboratory and classrooms to replace mobiles

  320

  Herschel

  Fire precaution works including alarm system

  130

  Langley Grammar

  Extension for 2 science laboratories with prep, rooms

  210

  Priory Combined

  Resources unit, 4 classrooms and toilets for physically disabled children

  275

  Southlands (Reading)

  Re-roofing

  15

  Bexley

  Barnehurst Infants

  2 new classrooms to replace mobiles

  90

  Barnehurst Junior

  1 new classroom to replace mobile

  50

  Birmingham

  Baverstock

  Roofing works; repairs and replacement

  42

  Great Barr

  Fire prevention work to the 4-storey block

  300

  Handsworth

  2 new technology rooms

  184

  Small Heath

  Replace heating boiler and controls

  55

  Bolton

  Crompton Fold

  New classroom and changing room to replace temporary accommodation

  90

  Repairs to heating system

  95

  Bradford

  Bingley

  Phase 2 of science wing

  250

  Brent

  Claremont High

  Refurbish home economics and CDT accommodation

  150

  Phase 2: Science wing

  350

  Copland

  Convert and refurbish 4 science laboratories

  150

  Bromley

  Beaverwood

  New technology block

  277

  Bullers Wood

  Provision of 5 new laboratories

  214

  Charles Darwin

  Phase 3: Rewiring of school

  162

  Coopers

  New technology block

  221

  Crofton Junior

  New science room

  55

  Hayes

  Refurbish science accommodation and health and safety work

  146

  Kelsey Park

  New technology block

  315

  Langley Park

  Remodel and refurbish craft block

  100

  Newstead Wood

  New technology block

  267

  Ravenswood Boys

  Technology extension and upgrade existing

  246

  Buckinghamshire

  Beaconsfield

  Re-roof main building

  190

  Bridgewater Hall

  Improvements to science and technology

  128

  Bridgewater Hall

  Replace shared boiler

  200

  With Brindley Hall

  Chalfonts

  2 new science laboratories plus preparation rooms

  305

  Calderdale

  Crossley Heath

  Laboratory refurbishment

  225

  North Halifax

  Essential cladding repairs

  125

  448
  the end of December 1992 which are to receive a capital grant allocation for 1993–94. Table B shows the allocations made to these schools under the technology schools intiative. Schools which became self-governing state schools on 1 January 1993 were invited to submit bids by 25 January 1993 for named capital projects and for resources under the technology schools initative. Decisions on the allocations for these schools have not yet been made.
  449

  School

  Project

  £ thousand

  Salterlee Primary

  Urgent health and safety work

  40

  Cambridgeshire

  Bassingbourne

  Reorganisation and refurbishment to provide technology facilities

  136

  Gamlingay Village

  New classrooms to replace 4 temporary classrooms

  185

  Remodel science and technology facilities

  137

  Park Lane Primary

  Re-roof

  80

  Queens

  Science department extension

  300

  St. Helen's Primary

  Replace mobiles with 2 classrooms and toilets

  120

  Cheshire

  Bankfield

  Part re-fenestration

  300

  Croydon

  Riddlesdown

  Health and safety works

  400

  Cumbria

  Hayton

  Alterations and extension to replace temporary accommodation

  170

  Kirkbie Kendal

  Phase 1: Science/technology facilities

  950

  Queen Katherine

  Roof and cladding repairs to 2 blocks

  50

  St. Aidan's

  Re-model and refurbish science laboratories

  150

  Trinity

  Refurbishment of science laboratories

  150

  Re-model technology suite and 1 classroom

  198

  Derbyshire

  Borrow Wood Junior

  Health and safety improvements

  65

  Resource area and circulation improvements

  45

  Ecclesbourne

  Phase 2: Technology block

  260

  Netherthorpe

  Replace temporary accommodation with modern language block

  200

  Dorset

  Avonbourne

  Improvements to existing technology and science departments

  220

  Bournemouth School for Girls

  4 new science laboratories

  350

  Budmouth

  Refurbish 7 science laboratories plus preparation rooms

  370

  Highcliffe

  Health and safety improvements

  75

  Parkstone Grammar

  Remodel and refurbish science and technology facilities

  500

  Woodrofle

  Refurbish 3 science laboratories

  150

  Ealing

  Drayton Manor

  Repair and upgrade art and technology roof

  77

  Ellen Wilkinson

  Window replacement in tower block

  105

  Remodelling to provide 2 additional laboratories

  95

  Greenford High

  Re-roof CDT, home economics and art block

  165

  Essex

  Beauchamps

  Boiler replacement and energy conservation

  118

  Boswells

  New technology block and refurbish technology and classrooms

  350

  Bromsford

  Major repairs and remedial works

  243

  Chalvedon

  Phase 3: Middle school refurbishment and extensions

  300

  Chelmsford Girls

  New science department

  500

  Eastwood

  Re-model and refurbish technology block

  120

  Elmwood Primary

  Provide 4 new classrooms and hall and extend reception area

  340

  Furthenvick Park

  Replace boiler, hot and cold storage and E.M.S.

  145

  Great Totham Primary

  Demolish temporary classroom, and conversion of existing accommodation

  75

  Katherines Primary

  Conversion of teaching areas

  75

  King Edward VI

  Replace temporary accommodation with new technology/art block

  270

  King Harold

  Re-roofing and renew curtain wall sealing

  155

  King John

  Refurbish 4 laboratories and preparation rooms

  188

  North Crescent Primary

  3 new classrooms

  180

  Northlands Junior

  Essential perimeter security fencing

  35

  Philip Morant

  Conversion to provide 3 laboratories

  120

  Plume

  Re-model upper school design and technology block

  148

  Rickstones

  Refurbish technology accommodation

  50

  Saffron Walden

  Replace asphalt roofs and parapets

  388

  Thurstable

  Re-model and extend technology

  200

  Torells

  Refurbish technology

  185

  Westcliff Boys

  2 new science laboratories

  170

  Gloucestershire

  Balcarras

  Re-roofing part of school

  80

  Chosen Hill

  Remodelling to form 3 science laboratories and preparation rooms

  195

  Cotswold

  Replace heaters and insulation in the ROSLA block

  42

  Crypt

  Refurbishment of science and technology facilities

  190

  Katherine Lady Berkeley

  Major roof repairs

  161

  Marling

  New science block and adaptations and demolition of some existing accommodation

  475

  Newent Community

  Refurbish 3 home economics rooms

  150

  Refurbish science laboratories

  90

  450 451

  School

  Project

  £ thousand

  Pates

  Replacement buildings: Part phase 3 and phase 4

  500

  Rednock

  New building to provide 2 science laboratories and 4 classrooms

  650

  Ribston Hall High

  Replace glazed aluminium cladding to 3-storey block

  198

  Robinswood Primary

  Replace school roof finish

  27

  Rewire and update electrical installation

  72

  Tewkesbury

  Replacement and rationalisation of heating and hot water services

  259

  Hampshire

  Burgate

  2 new science laboratories and preparation rooms

  230

  City of Portsmouth

  Refurbish 4 science laboratories

  120

  Crofton

  New block containing new science laboratories to replace temporary accommodation

  450

  Hardley

  New heating system to Butler block

  145

  Hertfordshire

  Christchurch

  New classroom to replace mobile

  71

  Francis Bacon

  Refurbish science laboratories

  120

  Up-grade fire resistance

  68

  Parkside First

  Internal alterations and repairs

  141

  Parmiters

  6 new classrooms and 2 new laboratories

  400

  Rickmansworth

  New art and design block

  440

  Remove asbestos, reclad and reroof (excluding VI Form block)

  120

  St. Mary's Primary

  Refurbish toilets

  30

  Hillingdon

  Bishopshalt

  Replace old boiler with gas heating system

  46

  Haydon

  New technology block and refurbish existing technology and classrooms

  270

  Hayes Manor

  Fire protective ceilings and ventilation—West building

  130

  Mellow Lane

  Major repairs and health and safety work (part only)

  302

  Northwood

  Re-roofing and repairs to rainwater goods

  136

  Queensmead

  New technology block and re-model technology provision

  300

  Uxbridge High

  Phase 1: roof repairs

  310

  Humberside

  Wold Newton

  Additional new classroom

  54

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan

  New technology building

  300

  Kent

  Angley

  Remodelling of design and technology department

  330

  Archbishops

  Conversion of workshop to laboratories and provision of CDT rooms and classrooms

  640

  Aylesford

  Phase 2: New technology and art block

  345

  Borough Green

  2 additional infant classrooms

  95

  Bradbourne

  Technology provision

  55

  Canterbury High

  New block of laboratories and toilets

  218

  Chatham Girls

  New technology block

  216

  Cornwallis

  Refurbish science laboratories

  300

  Cranbrook

  Refurbish English and History accommodation

  46

  Dartford Girls

  New technology block and adaptations to provide IT facility

  280

  Holy Trinity Primary

  Classroom renovation

  19

  Mailing

  Re-model technology accommodation

  285

  Maplesden Noakes

  Replace central heating boiler plant in each block

  200

  Conversion to science and technology room

  75

  Meopham

  Gas supply and new heating system

  200

  Minster College

  Refurbish technology facility

  364

  Rainham Mark

  Adaptations to science block

  200

  Robert Napier

  New technology accommodation

  358

  St. Georges (Gravesend)

  Alternative means of escape

  40

  Senacre

  New technology block and remodelling of existing

  230

  Simon Langton

  Remodelling to create art, design and technology centre plus new workshops

  370

  Sir Roger Marwood

  Extension and improvements to laboratories

  400

  Skinners

  Technology building

  200

  Snodland Primary

  New classroom block to replace mobiles

  200

  Thames view

  Asbestos removal and boiler replacement

  95

  Wilmington Boys

  Science block refurbishment

  200

  Kirklees

  Heckmondwike

  Phase 2: Repairs to old block

  189

  Additional technology accommodation and conversion

  266

  Lancashire

  Bacup and Rawtenstall

  Technology and science laboratory

  35

  Clitheroe Royal

  New classrooms and improvements to science

  400

  Lancaster Royal Grammar

  2 classroom block

  122

  Replacement of heating and domestic water system

  46

  Newton Bluecoat

  New changing rooms, medical inspection room and disabled toilet

  55

  452 453

  School

  Project

  £ thousand

  Lincolnshire

  Ancaster High

  Roof conversion

  50

  Bourne Abbey Primary

  2 additional classrooms, new science/technology room and toilets

  200

  Caistor

  New rooms for design/technology and IT

  260

  Carres

  Reroofing laboratory and main teaching blocks

  67

  Castle Hills

  Extension of technology block and science laboratory alterations

  350

  Ermine Junior

  New science and technology classrooms

  50

  Gartree

  Additional science laboratory and fire exit

  130

  Gleed Girls

  Phase 1 of technology/science improvements

  181

  Kings (Grantham)

  New science/IT block

  385

  Lincoln Christ Hospital

  Demolish temporary accommodation and extend technology/science facilities

  199

  Magdalen

  Heating system

  65

  North Kesteven

  Re-wiring of lower school block

  175

  Partial re-roofing

  125

  Queen Elizabeth (Alford)

  New science and technology extension to replace temporaries

  370

  Queen Elzabeth (Horncastle)

  Re-roofing—single storey Vic Hallam block

  77

  Rauceby

  Extension to provide classrooms, resource facilities and toilets

  170

  Robert Pattinson

  New science laboratories and re-model technology unit

  500

  St. George's (Sleaford)

  Two new double classroom blocks to replace temporaries

  200

  Replacement of 2 mobiles

  200

  Skegness

  Replace temporary classrooms with new teaching block including technology provision

  600

  William Farr

  Refurbishment of computer room science laboratories and new classrooms

  160

  Liverpool

  St. Francis Xavier

  New general and technical rooms

  600

  Norfolk

  Acle High

  Conversion to provide technology facilities

  145

  Single classroom extension

  50

  Costessey High

  Extension to provide 2 science laboratories

  200

  Cromer High

  Improvements to technology facilities

  205

  Dereham First

  New classroom

  60

  Gresham Village

  Three classroom extension and refurbishment of existing accommodation

  225

  Heacham Middle

  New technololgy room

  50

  Marshland High

  Extension and adaptations to technology suite

  235

  Norwich Road

  Roof renewal of main block

  121

  Renewal of main boiler

  45

  Robert Kett

  Repairs to roof and chimneys

  75

  Sheringham High

  Refurbish existing technololgy facilities

  270

  West Flegg Middle

  Two new classrooms to replace mobiles

  130

  Wymondham College

  Technology centre to replace temporary accommodation

  261

  Northamptonshire

  King John, Northants

  Replace slate roof and repair curtain walling

  45

  Kingswood

  Replacement of main heating system

  126

  Lodge Park

  Replacement of mobiles by new building

  470

  Moulton Primary

  Phase 3: Replace of 4 mobiles

  199

  Northampton Boys

  Refurbish 5 laboratories and repair works

  280

  Southfield Girls

  Repairs to concrete frame, flat roofs and toilets

  162

  Nottinghamshire

  Ravensdale Middle

  Structural repairs to craft areas

  40

  Rochdale

  Crossgates Primary

  New classroom

  35

  Shropshire

  Adams Grammar

  Repair support and facade of main entrance

  100

  Somerset

  Bruton Primary

  Phase 2: Classroom Extensions

  80

  Sexey's

  Science Department development

  200

  Southwark

  London Nautical

  Boiler and calorifer replacement

  140

  Surrey

  Beacon

  Expansion of canteen facilities

  34

  Cheam High

  New technology block

  216

  Collingwood

  External fabric refurbishment

  294

  Refurbishment laboratory/science block

  280

  De Stafford

  Urgent recladding and reroofing

  640

  Epsom and Ewell

  IT Development

  100

  Heathside

  Refurbishment 3 science laboratories

  120

  John Fisher

  Science—Fire, health and safety improvements

  200

  Manor County First

  Replace oil with gas central heating

  86

  Nonsuch High

  New classroom and re-model science laboratories

  335

  454 455

  School

  Project

  £ thousand

  Send First

  3 new classrooms and toilets

  210

  Stoneleigh First

  Window Replacement

  46

  Sutton Grammar

  Refurbishment 4 laboratories

  160

  Wilsons

  Food technology, design and art area

  150

  Tameside

  Audenshaw

  2 new classrooms

  105

  Tower Hamlets

  Raines Foundation

  New science laboratories and ancillary accommodation

  450

  Walsall

  Streetly

  Roof repairs

  87

  St. Thomas More

  New science block

  695

  Wandsworth

  Burntwood

  Window Replacement and Remedial works

  340

  Upgrade science classrooms and fire escape

  302

  Elliott

  Alteration to science accommodation

  300

  Warwickshire

  Ash Green

  Replacement of boilers

  111

  Avon Valley

  Phase 1: Extension of science and technology facilities and refurbishment

  220

  Hartshill

  Rewire whole school

  262

  Myton

  Extend and refurbish existing workshops for design and technology

  499

  Queen Elizabeth (Atherstone)

  Refurbish laboratory

  84

  Wiltshire

  St. Augustines

  New technology block

  230

  Woherhampton

  Moseley Park

  Two new science laboratories and associated facilities

  255

  Table B

  Technology schools initiative 1993–94 allocations for grant-maintained schools

  School

  Amount allocated (£thousands)

  Baines School

  205

  Beacon School

  185

  Cornwallis School

  207

  Graveney School

  300

  Homewood School

  176

  Manshead School

  252

  Northolt High School

  200

  Ravenswood School for Boys

  244

  Small Heath School

  211

  Southlands School

  223

  Stratford School

  300

  Wymondham College

  200

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parents rang the telephone helpline set up in respect of advice on grant-maintained schools by his Department on 1 February, for each of the first two weeks of operation.

  Mr. Forth
  During the first weeks of operation, the helpline received 271 calls, of which 214 were from parents. The number of calls received during the second week was 848, of which 674 were from parents. This gives a total of 1,119 calls during the first two weeks, of which 945 were from parents.

  Schools, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools in Northamptonshire which(a) are operating as grant-maintained, (b) are
  456
  approved for grant-maintained status but not yet open, (c) are schools which have voted yes and published proposals for grant-maintained status, (d) are schools which have voted yes but not yet published proposals and (e) are schools whose applications have been rejected.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  (A) Operating schools

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  Kingswood School

  Lodge Park School

  Manor School

  Montagu School

  Moulton Primary School

  Northampton (GM) School for Boys

  Sir Christopher Hatton School

  Southfield School for Girls

  The King John School

  The Windmill County GM Primary School

  Weavers School

  Wrenn School

  (B) Schools which are approved hut not yet operating

  Danesholme Junior School

  (C) Schools which have published proposals for grant-maintained status

  Corby Beanfield Junior School

  Queen Elizabeth School

  Woodnewton Way Junior School

  (D) Schools which have voted in favour of grant-maintained status but have not yet published proposals

  Millbrook Infant School

  (E) Schools whose application for grant-maintained status has been rejected

  Bliss Charity Primary School

  Kettering Boys School

  Coventry LEA
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide extra resources for education for Coventry local education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  Over the three financial years 1990–91 to 1992–93, the education component of Coventry's assessment has increased by almost 21 per cent. once the 1992–93 additional grant for teachers' pay has been taken into account. This is a substantial increase, well in excess of the rate of inflation.

  The local authority finance settlement for 1993–94 allows for an increase of 2·6 per cent. in education standard spending once account is taken of the transfer of responsibility for most further education to the Further Education Funding Council. This increase is reasonable, given that inflation is falling and that public sector pay settlements in the coming financial year should be restricted to between zero and 1·5 per cent. Coventry will receive its fair share of this increase.

  Sidney Stringer School, Coventry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the subject matter of his consultation with governors of Sidney Stringer school in Coventry.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is not aware of any issues arising from consultation of the governors of Sidney Stringer school. In conducting consultation exercises, from time to time, it is normal practice to consult a wide range of interested bodies, including teacher unions.

  Nurseries
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest information on the number of children attending nursery schools and nursery classes in each local education area in England.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of pupils of all ages attending maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1992 are shown in the table.

  Pupils attending maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each LEA in England January 1992

  LEA

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  City

  0

  29

  Camden

  191

  821

  Greenwich

  682

  2,425

  Hackney

  165

  2,047

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  574

  936

  Islington

  268

  1,533

  Kensington and Chelsea

  264

  564

  Lambeth

  447

  1,847

  Lewisham

  231

  2,342

  Southwark

  484

  2,231

  Tower Hamlets

  695

  1,997

  Wandsworth

  209

  2,031

  Westminster

  165

  884

  Barking

  0

  1,751

  Barnet

  512

  1,868

  Bexley

  180

  947

  Brent

  241

  2,231

  Bromley

  0

  154

  458

  LEA

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  Croydon

  454

  707

  Ealing

  589

  2,657

  Enfield

  0

  1,484

  Haringey

  214

  2,347

  Harrow

  0

  958

  Havering

  0

  247

  Hillingdon

  120

  3,046

  Hounslow

  0

  2,471

  Kingston upon Thames

  242

  932

  Merton

  0

  2,593

  Newham

  948

  3,501

  Redbridge

  0

  987

  Richmond upon Thames

  71

  635

  Sutton

  240

  1,445

  Waltham Forest

  321

  2,181

  Birmingham

  2,368

  7,975

  Coventry

  228

  1,968

  Dudley

  71

  2,810

  Sandwell

  216

  4,425

  Solihull

  0

  1,728

  Walsall

  792

  3,431

  Wolverhampton

  847

  3,089

  Knowsley

  0

  2,524

  Liverpool

  561

  5,789

  St. Helens

  75

  1,558

  Sefton

  315

  2,156

  Wirral

  315

  1,999

  Bolton

  499

  2,558

  Bury

  151

  1,295

  Manchester

  554

  6,814

  Oldham

  0

  2,386

  Rochdale

  933

  1,085

  Salford

  844

  2,478

  Stockport

  910

  822

  Tameside

  355

  2,150

  Trafford

  0

  1,820

  Wigan

  196

  1,929

  Barnsley

  180

  2,771

  Doncaster

  0

  3,327

  Rotherham

  373

  2,602

  Sheffield

  754

  4,971

  Bradford

  508

  5,528

  Calderdale

  0

  1,799

  Kirklees

  543

  3,903

  Leeds

  280

  8,037

  Wakefield

  476

  3,852

  Gateshead

  70

  1,728

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  693

  2,347

  North Tyneside

  292

  2,356

  South Tyneside

  777

  1,448

  Sunderland

  1,006

  2,169

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Avon

  1,679

  3,307

  Bedfordshire

  1,402

  3,753

  Berkshire

  2,134

  3,664

  Buckinghamshire

  518

  2,178

  Cambridgeshire

  717

  1,480

  Cheshire

  860

  4,621

  Cleveland

  143

  9,280

  Cornwall

  113

  1,502

  Cumbria

  798

  2,204

  Derbyshire

  1,508

  7,452

  Devon

  294

  2,450

  Dorset

  0

  805

  Durham

  2,699

  4,177

  East Sussex

  298

  1,163

  Essex

  266

  2,180

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  338

  1,655

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  1,274

  Hertfordshire

  1,699

  6,745

  Humberside

  1,129

  7,628

  Isle of Wight

  0

  186

  Kent

  91

  1,893

  Lancashire

  3,382

  3,477

  Leicestershire

  50

  5,343

  459

  LEA

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  Lincolnshire

  243

  1,109

  Norfolk

  396

  461

  North Yorkshire

  395

  3,111

  Northamptonshire

  620

  2,297

  Northumberland

  156

  2,695

  Nottinghamshire

  563

  12,762

  Oxfordshire

  1,097

  1,494

  Shropshire

  119

  1,224

  Somerset

  0

  239

  Staffordshire

  2,035

  4,532

  Suffolk

  100

  2,867

  Surrey

  436

  2,426

  Warwickshire

  757

  1,366

  West Sussex

  459

  143

  Wiltshire

  0

  561

  England

  52,183

  278,160

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), Official Report, column 446, what is his Department's(a) current outturn estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (b) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  As noted in the Department's annual report (Cm 2210), which was laid before Parliament on 9 February, expenditure by the Department on publicity and publications, excluding statutory orders, is expected to be about £6·8 million in 1992–93. The provisional budget for 1993–94 is £8·0 million.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the percentage of students who entered further and higher education for the latest year for which information is available; and what corresponding information he has for each EC country.

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1991–92 some 67 per cent. of 16-year-olds and 49 per cent. of 17-year-olds participated in full-time education in schools, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges in England. In the same year some 23 per cent. of 18 to 20-year-olds in Great Britain entered full-time higher education. Further details are shown in tables 17 and 21 of the departmental report, Cm 2210. Comparisons with certain EC countries are shown on pages 16 and 17 of "Education Statistics for the UK" 1992 edition, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Primary and Secondary Schools (Resources)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to rectify the imbalance of resources between primary and secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for each local education authority to determine the appropriate balance of spending between the primary and secondary school sectors. The 1993–94 local authority grant settlement allows for local authorities in England to spend £16,854 million on education overall, 2·6 per cent. more than the comparable figure for 1992–93.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State fir Education what steps he has taken to evaluate the impact of the decision to cease funding for health education co-ordination within the grants for education support and training programmes on drug abuse work.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend will look to the Office for Standards in Education to provide hire with information and advice about all aspects of education provision in schools. This will include provision made for preventive health education, aspects of which are included in the national curriculum and must be studied by all pupils.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have had surpluses in excess of £1 million in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92; and if he will list them.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Training and enterprise councils may earn surpluses by the effective use of some of the funds made available to them by the Department, to meet their needs for adequate reserves for their day-to-day commitments as companies, to finance any advances in funding they make to their training providers and to reinvest in local training, education and enterprise activities. Under their contracts, they can use their surpluses only on activities agreed with the Department to further the objectives in their plans. The surpluses held by each TEC for both 1990–91 and 1991–92 may be seen in their published accounts, which are available in the Library.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how she intends to continue funding of health and safety training by trade unions and for workers' representatives.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced in December, the current public subsidy for the training of trade union officials will be phased out over a three-year period from April. We will, however, be providing some additional funds to the Health and Safety Commission for health and safety training initiatives.

WALES

  Police Areas
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the resident population of each police force area in Wales in 1981 and 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The mid-year estimates of resident population for the police force areas of Wales for 1981 and 1991 are shown in the table.
  461

  1981 Thousands

  19911 Thousands

  North Wales

  624·9

  653·8

  Gwent

  441·7

  446·9

  South Wales

  1,302·7

  1,316·1

  Dyfed-Powys

  444·2

  469·5

  Source: Registrar General's Mid Year Estimate of Resident Population.

  1 1991 data are provisional.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications have been made by students to each of the access funds within each university, college and college of higher education in Wales in each year since the establishment of the funds.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since the access funds were established in 1990–91, the Universities Funding Council has been responsible for distributing access funds to the colleges of the university of Wales. The Welsh Office has distributed access funds to the other further and higher —FHE—institutions in Wales.

  Institutions do not usually distinguish between the three access funds when considering applications. According to returns from FHE institutions in Wales a total of 3,160 students applied for assistance from the access funds in 1990–91 and 3,932 in 1991–92. Similar information for 1992–93 will not be available until later in the year.

  Wilprint Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he received requests from the fraud squad for files relating to the placing of printing and publicity contracts with the Wilprint Group; and on whether that request was complied with.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department always co-operates fully with the police.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing units have developed by Tai Cymru in areas with a population of under 3,000 in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available centrally.

  Local Authority Reserves
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the level of reserves, excluding capital receipts, held by each local authority in Wales in each year from 1990 onwards; and if he will publish estimated reserve levels, excluding capital receipts, for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information available is shown in table 8·9 of "Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics 1992", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This includes estimated reserves at 31 March 1993.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to paragraph 9·13 of the Welsh Office report, "Government Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96", Cm. 2215, on what date he estimates the quinquennial review of the aims and objectives of the Cardiff Bay development corporation will(a) commence and (b) be completed; what external consultancy assistance will be sought and by what means, to assist in the review; what the total cost of the review is estimated to be, inclusive of any such consultancy assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I expect the financial management and policy review of the Cardiff bay development to begin around the end of the financial year and to take approximately three months to complete. Such reviews are normally conducted by a Welsh Office official assigned to the project for its duration. On that basis, I estimate the cost to be about £14,000.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to figure 3·09 of the Welsh Office report, "Government Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96", Cm. 2215, when he expects to set the target rate of return on the Welsh Development Agency for its investment function in 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I expect to agree a provisional financial duty shortly and to determine a final financial duty for 1993–94 later this year.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to paragraph 3·16 of the Welsh Office report, "Government Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96", Cm. 2215, what consultations he has had with the Welsh Development Agency concerning the sale of all or any of the Treforest, Bridgend, Waterton Forestfach or Wrexham industrial estates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The departmental report clearly sets out the Government's policy on planned disposals. Decisions on which properties to bring forward are for the Welsh Development Agency.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) health authority members and (b) members of boards of national health service trusts are elected members of principal local authorities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Seven health authority members and two national health service trust non-executive directors were elected members of a principal local authority in Wales at the time of their appointment. Since local authorities are not required to notify the Department about changes to their membership, the Welsh Office does not have a record of changes in elected member status for these or other health authority members and trust non-executive directors following appointment.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to paragraph 9·08 of the Welsh Office report, "Government Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96, Cm.
  463
  2215", if he will place a copy in the Library of the October 1992 report on health promotion and the subsequent action plan.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The action plan is still under consideration. Publication of the scrutiny report and the Welsh Office's response will be addressed when that consideration is complete.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members of TECs are elected members of principal local authorities.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information as to whether members of TECs are also elected members of local authorities is not collected centrally.

  A465
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when contracts will be signed for construction work to begin on the A465 link between Aberdulais and Glynneath.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The contract will be let shortly before main works start. This is planned for 1993–94 and is contingent on expenditure on other schemes in the roads programme.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd., (f) K.P.M.G. management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Curry
  Consultancy fees totalling £304,082 were paid to Coopers and Lybrand, Touche Ross, Price Waterhouse, and KPMG, for the financial year 1991–92. A further breakdown of figures cannot be given as this information is classified commercial in confidence. These consultancy firms were involved in six areas of work in my core-department. This answer excludes contracts made for information technology work and those made by executive agencies. The precise number of contracts, and information for the last 12 months, can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the number and percentage of cereal farmers in each EC member state who will have to place land in set-aside.

  Mr. Curry
  The information in the following table is derived from budgetary estimates of expenditure on the CAP reform package prepared by the Commission. The estimates do not distinguish between cereals farmers and those growing oilseeds or protein crops, both of which are also covered by the arable area payments scheme.
  464

  Country

  Number of growers expected to set land aside

  Percentage of growers expected to set land aside

  Belgium

  7,644

  16

  Denmark

  37,770

  46

  Germany

  105,474

  21

  Greece

  4,378

  1

  Spain

  58,169

  8

  France

  202,744

  34

  Ireland

  6,285

  15

  Italy

  34,210

  3

  Luxembourg

  256

  10

  Netherlands

  6,068

  26

  Portugal

  2,349

  1

  United Kingdom

  50,363

  63

  Total

  515,710

  12

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the likely acreage for set-aside for cereal land in each EC member state under the common agricultural policy reform proposals.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 14 December 1992 at column 70. That information was derived from Commission estimates which do not distinguish between land used to grow cereals and land used for other arable crops eligible for the new arable area payments.

  Consultancies
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Curry
  During the financial year 1991–92 contracts were awarded by my core-department to consultancy firms involved in ten areas of work. This answer excludes contracts made for information technology consultancies and those made by executive agencies. The precise number of contracts, and information for the last 12 months, can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact on the sheep annual premium of a change in the pound sterling/ecu exchange rate to £ = 1·25 ecu.

  Mr. Curry
  The final rate of sheep annual premium in respect of 1992 is calculated according to the green exchange rate in force on 3 January 1993. It will not be affected by changes in the pound sterling/ecu exchange rate subsequent to that date.

  The rate of premium for future years will depend on the level of market prices and green rates operating in each member state throughout the year. The pound sterling/ecu exchange rate is therefore only one factor affecting the level of premium payable in the United Kingdom, and its impact cannot be assessed independently of the others.

  Bee Diseases
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his actions to alleviate bee diseases.
  465
  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: Since my reply to the Member for Linlithgow on 5 November at columns 405–06, a further 33 cases of varroasis have been confirmed, all within the infected area, making a total of 318. I have arranged for letters to be sent to every beekeeper known to the Department to ensure that each is aware of the varroa controls and the advice that is available. I have also arranged for a further varroa search to take place in the spring. Until then existing controls will be maintained. Further action will depend on the results of the search. We shall also continue to take the necessary action to tackle other bee diseases including American foul brood and European foul brood.

  Veterinary Science
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what Government funding is made available annually towards the cost of the training course for veterinary science.

  Mr. Boswell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Funding for veterinary schools is the responsibility of the Universities Funding Council. The UFC's teaching

  Class of Drug

  Numbers Discharged

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Class A

  Importing

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Supplying

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Possessing

  7

  5

  7

  7

  24

  36

  Class B

  1

  Importing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Supplying

  10

  7

  13

  10

  12

  20

  Possessing

  43

  43

  45

  51

  75

  103

  Class C

  Importing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Supplying

  —

  —

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  Possessing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Toxic Substances:

  —

  2

  2

  —

  6

  6

  Total Offenders:

  60

  57

  68

  68

  121

  170

  Notes.

  1. Class A drugs include heroin, opium, morphine, cocaine, pethidine, other narcotic drugs, LSD and certain other injectable amphetamines and hallucinogens.

  Class B drugs include other narcotics, cannabis, cannabis resin and amphetamines.

  Class C drugs include a number of amphetamine-like drugs.

  Toxic material includes glue, lighter fuel and other inhaled hallucinogenic substances.

  Information in respect of the types of drugs involved in cases of administrative discharge is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In my answer of 5 February, columns 373–74, the figures shown for dismissal related solely to those instances where an offender's most serious offence was either importing, possessing, or supplying drugs. The figures provided in today's answer also include those convicted of

  Rank

  Year

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Royal Navy

  Ordinary rate

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  7

  Able rate

  3

  6

  4

  13

  23

  56

  466
  unit of resource for veterinary science for the academic year 1992–93 is £9,589. The UFC is funding some 1,800 undergraduate places.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels 12 m long and under are registered in the United Kingdom; and what is their total horse power.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are 9,153 fishing vessels of 12 m or less; total horse power is 697,237.

DEFENCE

  Drugs
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, column 373–4, if he will list the drugs involved in each case of discharge from the services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The drugs involved in dismissals following court martial or summary proceedings are as follows:

  a more serious offence of violence in addition to a drugs charge and are therefore slightly higher than the figures previously provided.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, columns 373–74, what were the ranks of all those discharged from the services for drugs-related offences.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The ranks of those dismissed for drugs offences following court martial or summary proceeding are as follows:
  467

  Rank

  Year

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Leading rate

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Petty Officer

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  Private

  38

  37

  50

  46

  78

  83

  Lance Corporal

  5

  3

  5

  2

  5

  6

  Corporal

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Sergeant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Staff Sergeant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Lieutenant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Captain

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Air Force

  Aircraftman

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Leading Aircraftman

  8

  5

  7

  5

  7

  12

  Corporal

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  60

  57

  68

  68

  121

  170

  Information on the rank of those administratively discharged for drug offences is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In my answer of 5 February, the figures shown for dismissal related solely to those instances where an offender's most serious offence was either importing, possessing or supplying drugs. The figures provided in today's answer also include those convicted of a more serious offence of violence in addition to a drugs charge and are therefore slightly higher than the figures previously provided.

  Absence Without Leave
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of the various branches of the armed forces towards punishment of service men and women who are absent without leave.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Absence without leave is an offence under the service discipline Acts and is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. It is regarded as a serious offence as it can undermine the operational effectiveness of a unit and the morale of other personnel. Punishments awarded vary according to the circumstances of individual cases.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for which of its services to the public the Meteorological Office charges a fee directly to the user;

  (2) what income the Meteorological Office has generated from answering public inquiries about the United Kingdom inshore water forecast in each year since it began charging for the service.

  Mr. Aitken
  These are matters delegated to the Meteorological Office under the terms of the framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply directly to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Professor Julian Hunt to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 22 February 1993:

  Dear Mr. Ainger

  I am responding to your two written Parliamentary Questions.
  468
  (1) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for which of its services to the public the Meterological Office charges a fee directly to the user.
  The Met Office provides services to the public in a variety of ways. Some services, such as severe weather warnings and a range of basic forecast scripts, are provided free of charge to the broadcasting media. Other television, radio and newspaper services (the majority) are provided on a commercial basis to the media companies, but are received by the user—the public—at no direct cost.
  Only services offered directly to the public are charged directly. For example, Weathercall is a premium-rated telephone service run jointly by the Met Office and a private firm. Through its network of Weather Centres the Met Office provides weather forecasts for each of 27 areas around the UK, updated three times a day. Revenue from the calls is shared between the line provider (normally British Telecom) and the service providers.
  A similar service, called Marinecall, is provided for leisure yachtsmen, giving weather forecasts for 15 inshore areas and two sea areas around the United Kingdom. Services for mountain walkers, skiers and holiday makers (Mountaincall, Skicall and International Weathercall respectively) are also offered.
  Over the past year, the Met Office has extended the premium-rated approach to dial-in fax services. MetFAX offers a range of products, designed for yachtsmen, general aviation and schools. A version for the general public, corresponding to Weathercall, is planned for later this year.
  Finally, the public can make use of special telephone numbers at Weather Centres and speak directly to forecasters, for which a subscription charge and a charge per call is made. However this service, together with a large range of more tailored services, is aimed more at specific markets, such as agriculture, building and the offshore industry, rather than the general public.
  (2) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what income the Meteorological Office has generated from answering public enquiries about the United Kingdom inshore weather forecast in each year since it began charging for the service.
  The Met Office provides an inshore waters forecast for the United Kingdom twice daily to the BBC free of charge as part of the Office's Public Meteorological Service. The forecasts are broadcast on Radio 3 in the morning and Radio 4 in the evening.
  In addition, a premium-rated telephone service (Marinecall) is available. The Marinecall service comprises 15 inshore areas, a national UK inshore and two sea area forecasts (for the English Channel and the southern North Sea). Forecasts are updated twice daily from our network of Weather Centres—for example the forecasts for St. David's Head to Hartland Point and for St. David's Head to Colwyn Bay are provided from Cardiff Weather Centre.
  The service began in 1986, earning revenue as follows:
  469

  £

  1986–87

  32,000

  1987–88

  82,000

  1988–89

  128,000

  1989–90

  213,000

  1990–91

  242,000

  1991–92

  240,000

  11992–93

  194,000

  1 10 months to date.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with his American counterpart with regard the maximum number of warheads to be carried by each British Trident submarine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of warheads carried by a British Trident submarine is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. We have long made clear that each submarine will enter service carrying no more than 128 warheads. The exact number to be deployed will be decided in the light of the circumstances at the time.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the first flight of the European fighter aircraft to take place; in what country it is to occur; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The first flight of Eurofighter 2000 is expected this year. The contractor's programme envisages that a German-assembled prototype will be the first to fly, followed shortly after by a second aircraft in the United Kingdom.

  The activities leading to first flight have been somewhat delayed by the programme review commissioned last year and the changes introduced as a result of decisions taken at the quadripartite ministerial meeting on 10 December 1992. A number of technical issues—none of them of a serious nature—remain to be resolved, including qualifications of the flight control system software—which is critical to flight safety—and which is taking longer than originally expected. The precise timing of first flight is a matter for the manufacturers to decide when they judge sufficient development progress has been made to allow flight testing to proceed safely.

  Vessel Hulls
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what classes of vessel his Department allows tenderers to respond on the basis of non-United Kingdom built hulls;

  (2) on how many occasions and for what classes of vessel tenderers to his Department have responded on the basis of non-United Kingdom built hulls.

  Mr. Aitken
  Apart from the conversion of existing merchant shipping to meet certain specialist requirements, the only occasion on which tenderers were permitted to respond on the basis of non-United Kingdom built hulls was for the competition for single role mine hunters, cancelled in 1991.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what opportunities exist under the Independent 470
  European Programme Group/Western European Union arrangements for United Kingdom warship builders to bid to supply hulls for other European navies;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Independent European Programme Group/Western European Union arrangements for reciprocal purchasing in the field of warship hulls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The nations of the Independent European Programme Group which now all participate in the WEU, are under no obligation to include warship hulls in the arrangements agreed in the IEPG to open the European defence equipment market.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the extent to which United Kingdom shipbuilders have been invited to tender to supply hulls to the navies of(a) France, (b) the Netherlands, (c) Belgium, (d) Italy and (e) Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am not aware that any such invitations have recently been received from any of the countries listed.

  Warships
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the proportion of warship building capacity which is state owned in(a) France, (b) the Netherlands, (c) Belgium, (d) Italy and (e) Germany; and what effect this has on reciprocal purchasing arrangements.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (M r. Viggers) on 17 February,Official Report, column 254.

  Fatal Accidents
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider making it the practice of Her Majesty's Government to make publicly available the conclusions and recommendations of service boards of inquiry reports investigating fatal accidents subject to the agreement of the next of kin of the deceased and the minimum of security requirements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: Service board of inquiry reports are internal documents written for internal use by the service concerned. Their conclusions and recommendations may refer to failings on the part not only of the deceased, but also of other named, or identifiable, service personnel or service units involved. While this is no longer considered sufficient justification for withholding reports from the next of kin of the deceased, it does render the material inappropriate for routine publication by the Ministry of Defence.

HEALTH

  Drug Prescribing
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the proposals to extend the selected list regulations to 10 therapeutic categories
  471
  will not be implemented until after the two joint working groups set up by her Department with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry to (a) to examine the factors contributing to the rate of growth of NHS expenditure on drugs and (b) to consider the future development of the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom and its contribution to the national economy have had the opportunity to make initial recommendations to her.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  NHS Staff (Medical Screening)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the responsibilities transferred by statutory instrument from the former medical officers of health to the health authorities on the occasions of health and local government reorganisation in respect of medical screening and examinations of local authority staff and applicants; and which such services are provided free of charge.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The exact responsibilities of the national health service for providing services to local authorities are not set out in statute. They are covered in general terms by the requirement in section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977 that health and local authorities must co-operate in order to secure and advance the health and welfare of their residents, and also in general guidance issued by the Department.

  NHS Low Income Scheme
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the outcome of the review of the national health service low income scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on Tuesday 15 December at column 184. I hope to make an announcement soon.

  NHS Drugs
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to her answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 321, what evidence she possesses that the selected list scheme continues to exert a downward pressure on the national health service drugs bill; and in what year it was obtained;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 321, what are the grounds for her belief that measures under the selected list scheme continue to exert a downward pressure on the drugs bill.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Advisory Committee on National Health Service drugs is required to ensure that drugs to meet all real clinical needs in the specified categories can be provided as economically as possible under the NHS. In considering whether to recommend that a particular product should not be prescribed under the NHS, the committee will have regard both to its cost and to the cost of alternative products which are likely to be prescribed in its place. This ensures that the net effect of the committee's recommendations will be to exert a continuing downward pressure on the NHS drugs bill.

  Anti-ulcer Products
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what degree doctors began prescribing the more expensive anti-ulcer products as an alternative after the selected list scheme was introduced and applied to antacid products in 1985; and if her Department has assessed the total costs to the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Such an estimate, whether relating to the volume or cost of prescriptions, could not be made as information about diagnosis is not included on prescription forms.

  Cholera
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances of cholera in the United Kingdom by region, have been reported in each year since 1988.

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

  The data provided are for England and Wales only. The information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Number of cholera cases notified for England and Wales by Regional Health Authority, 1988–91

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  England and Wales

  17

  13

  19

  22

  Wales

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Trent

  1

  2

  3

  3

  East Anglia

  —

  —

  1

  2

  North West Thames

  —

  —

  —

  1

  North East Thames

  3

  1

  1

  —

  South East Thames

  —

  1

  2

  4

  South West Thames

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Wessex

  —

  3

  —

  1

  Oxford

  3

  1

  2

  2

  South Western

  2

  —

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Mersey

  —

  2

  1

  2

  North Western

  2

  —

  3

  1

  Juvenile Offenders (Secure Places)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she intends to privatise secure accommodation for young people.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assistance she proposes to give to local authorities for the staffing and running costs of secure places provided by them so that juvenile offenders are not sent to prison; from what sources such assistance will be provided; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Financial assistance for the staffing and running costs of additional secure places managed by local authorities will be considered in the appropriate public expenditure surveys. Consideration will be given to seeking a transfer of part of the resources from the Home Office when the courts have power to direct remanded juveniles to secure accommodation.
  473
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 319, what representations she has received that the proposed number of additional secure places for juvenile offenders is insufficient; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  A number of representations have been received from local authorities. We are satisfied that the estimate is based on the best possible information currently available. The position will be kept under review.

  Dysentery
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances of dysentery have been reported by region in the United Kingdom in each year since 1988.

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

  The data provided are for England and Wales only. The information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Notifications of Dysentery for England and Wales by Regional Health Authority, 1988–1991.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  England and Wales

  3,692

  3,277

  2,756

  9,935

  Wales

  91

  115

  235

  972

  Northern

  50

  30

  48

  606

  Yorkshire

  572

  628

  519

  3,466

  Trent

  272

  314

  145

  718

  East Anglia

  54

  159

  47

  39

  North West Thames

  360

  297

  297

  284

  North East Thames

  165

  157

  209

  162

  South East Thames

  163

  146

  131

  179

  South West Thames

  399

  281

  177

  214

  Wessex

  112

  66

  85

  90

  Oxford

  198

  226

  171

  147

  South Western

  130

  153

  188

  504

  West Midlands

  724

  370

  198

  711

  Mersey

  74

  60

  35

  123

  North Western

  328

  275

  271

  1,720

  Hepatitis
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances of hepatitis A and B have been reported, by region, in the United Kingdom in each year since 1988.

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

  The data provided are for England and Wales only. The information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Notifications of Hepatitis (all forms) for England and Wales by Regional Health Authority, 1988–1991.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  England and Wales

  5,062

  7,071

  9,005

  7,917

  Wales

  194

  129

  257

  260

  Northern

  383

  569

  1,232

  1,343

  Yorkshire

  572

  1,269

  1,585

  1,923

  Trent

  359

  474

  487

  301

  East Anglia

  125

  191

  133

  124

  474

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  North West Thames

  370

  410

  303

  222

  North East Thames

  298

  321

  427

  409

  South East Thames

  263

  322

  937

  645

  South West Thames

  190

  224

  242

  119

  Wessex

  249

  201

  174

  94

  Oxford

  210

  487

  712

  564

  South Western

  296

  191

  399

  146

  West Midlands

  325

  488

  570

  484

  Mersey

  117

  151

  503

  479

  North Western

  1,111

  1,644

  1,044

  804

  Corporate Affairs Intelligence Unit
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the main duties and responsibilities of the corporate affairs intelligence unit, NHS ME, based in Leeds; how many people are employed there full-time and part-time; what is the budget for 1993 and estimated budget for each of the next three years; what funding comes from departmental budgets other than her own; arid if she will make a statement;

  (2) when the corporate affairs intelligence unit, NHS ME in Leeds was established; what consultants arid advisers it has used since it was established and what is the total cost of such retention; what is the total cost of entertainment, travel and other facilities to journalists and others since it was established; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The corporate affairs intelligence unit was established on 30 September 1991. Its duties, which were previously undertaken by the Department's regional liaison division, include the preparation of draft replies for Ministers and the national health service management executive on matters concerning the NHS that are not appropriate for referral to NHS authorities and trusts, and the preparation of briefing for parliamentary questions, early-day motions, invitations, etc. It supports Ministers and the management executive in their contact with the NHS in each region. The unit is also responsible for advising Ministers on the appointment of chairmen and members of NHS authorities and trusts.

  On 1 February 1993, there were 53 full-time staff in the unit, and three temporary typists. The unit has a manpower budget of about El million for 1993–94, the same as that for 1992–93; estimates have not been prepared for future years. All funding comes from Department of Health budgets.

  Since its inception, the unit has received advice and guidance from a number of sources including the Department's information division. PA Consulting Group assisted with setting up and running a number of training workshops for the unit staff. The value of the contract with PA Consulting Group is commercially confidential.

  The unit is staffed by civil servants, none of whom is authorised to speak to journalists, and does not provide entertainment, travel or other facilities to them. The unit has a hospitality budget of some £1,800 which is used, in the main, to provide refreshments to people from outside the Department attending meetings with the unit.

  North East Trust Zone
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the main duties and responsibilities of the north east trust zone, based in Leeds; how many people are
  475
  employed there full-time and part-time; what is the budget for 1993 and estimated budget for each of the next three years; which part of her Departmental budget supplies the funding; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service management executive north east outpost is one of six outposts established by the management executive to monitor the performance of NHS trusts. The outpost has responsibility for monitoring NHS trusts within the geographical area covered by the Northern, Yorkshire and Trent regional health authorities. Within the zone there are 31 trusts established as part of the first and second waves and 40 units which will become trusts on 1 April 1993 as part of the third wave. In addition 35 applications are currently being considered from units that wish to become trusts as part of the fourth wave.

  The main responsibilities of the outpost are as follows:

  Monitoring trusts' financial performance against statutory financial duties;

  Reviewing trusts' strategic direction and annual business plans;

  Appraising trusts' business cases for capital investment;

  Monitoring trusts' annual reports and accounts;

  Leading the assessment process for fourth wave trusts;

  Providing a channel of communication between trusts and the Management Executive.

  The outpost has eight staff, all of whom are full-time. The budget for 1993–94 is £650,000. We expect the budget to reflect inflation in each of the next three years. Funding has been provided from within existing regional health authority allocations.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 604, if she will list those hospitals, in each region that have been notified to her Department as experiencing problems managing their resources to cope with admissions levels.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no formal requirement on hospitals to send such a notification to the Department. It is for individual health authorities and trusts to manage their resources and to make arrangements for non-emergency admissions to hospitals when admissions are running at a particularly high level.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 February,Offical Report, column 828, if she will place copies of the financial accounts from all first wave self-governing trusts in the Library.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The financial accounts information supplied by first wave trusts for 1991–92 is summarised by the Department and presented to Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General when he has completed his audit. The summarised accounts will be published as a House of Commons paper copies of which are placed in the Library. Full copies of the accounts of individual trusts are in the public domain and can be obtained locally.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what charge per day per patient is made by secure units for the mentally ill in Yorkshire in(a) self-governing trusts and (b) other hospitals.
  476
  Mr. Yeo
  Information on the charges made by secure units to national health service purchasers in respect of normal referrals is not held centrally. Details of daily charges are collected for patients admitted as extra contractual referrals. The latest figures available are for financial year 1991–92 and are as follows:

  £ per day

  Newton Lodge medium secure unit (Wakefield)

  198

  De La Pole Hospital interim secure unit (Hull)

  191

  High Royds Hospital interim secure unit (Ilkley)

  100

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been received from Yorkshire regional health authority over the past five years about a secure unit for those suffering from mental illness.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 February.

  Lynfield Mount Hospital
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will arrange for each response to the consultation carried out concerning a proposal to establish a special care unit at Lynfield Mount hospital, Bradford, to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  The individual responses will be available at Bradford health authority's headquarters.

  Mifepristone/RU486
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the drug Mifepristone/RU486; what guidance she has issued on its use; and what plans she has to review its usage.

  Mr. Sackville
  Mifegyne (mifepristone; RU486) was granted a licence in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968 on advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), an independent drug safety committee established under the Act. Following a thorough evaluation of the available data from pre-clinical studies, clinical trials and usage in other countries, both the CSM and the licensing authority were satisfied as to the safety, quality and efficacy of the drug.

  The use of Mifegyne for the termination of pregnancy is subject to the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended). Guidance to doctors on its usage is contained in the data sheet and information for patients is given in the patient information Leaflet. These documents were approved by both the CSM and the licensing authority.

  As with all marketed drugs, information on the safety of RU486 is collected and investigated by the CSM. The safety, quality and efficacy of RU486 are taken into consideration during reviews of its usage.

  Ambulances (Emergency Calls)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) for each ambulance authority in England and (b) for the financial year 1991–92 and each off the first two quarters of 1992–93 (i) the total number of emergency calls, (ii) the percentage of emergency calls which were reached within 14 minutes in urban areas and (iii) the percentage of emergency calls which were reached within 19 minutes in rural areas.
  477
  Mr. Sackville
  Information for 1992–93 is not yet available. Final figures for 1991–92 are given in the table.

  Emergency calls

  Ambulance authority

  Total number of emergency calls

  Response within 19 minutes calls Per cent.

  Non-Metropolitan authorities 1991–92

  Cleveland

  23,089

  94

  Cumbria

  14,602

  87

  Durham

  29,583

  96

  Humberside

  141,793

  99

  North Yorkshire

  20,904

  96

  Derbyshire

  35,714

  297

  Leicestershire

  31,647

  96

  Lincolnshire NHS Trust

  16,388

  296

  Nottinghamshire

  53,500

  297

  Cambridgeshire

  119,206

  84

  Norfolk NHS Trust

  26,808

  91

  Suffolk

  11,606

  291

  Bedfordshire

  20,471

  95

  Hertfordshire

  38,773

  96

  Essex

  62,577

  96

  East Sussex

  33,338

  96

  Kent

  55,993

  96

  Surrey

  42,565

  291

  West Sussex

  25,048

  97

  Dorset

  125,583

  97

  Hampshire

  137,508

  97

  Wiltshire

  14,383

  96

  Isle of Wight

  13,477

  99

  Berkshire

  127,665

  93

  Buckinghamshire

  17,155

  296

  Northamptonshire

  16,657

  298

  Oxfordshire

  15,614

  292

  Avon

  33,321

  299

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  16,306

  292

  Devon

  133,304

  94

  Gloucestershire

  15,696

  94

  Somerset

  11,078

  291

  Hereford and Worcester

  119,867

  97

  Shropshire

  13,732

  293

  Staffordshire

  41,346

  299

  Warwickshire

  113,898

  94

  Cheshire

  37,522

  287

  Lancashire

  71,414

  299

  1 Return based on number of emergency patient journeys.

  2 Journeys where response within 20 minutes.

  Emergency calls

  Ambulance authority

  Total number of emergency calls

  Response within 19 minutes calls Per cent.

  Metropolitan authorities 1991–92

  Northumberland Metropolitan NHS Trust

  166,098

  97

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan

  101,227

  83

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan NHS Trust

  64,073

  76

  London Ambulance Service

  472,310

  64

  West Midlands Metropolitan

  1120,258

  92

  Mersey Metropolitan NHS Trust

  1102,096

  94

  Greater Manchester Metropolitan

  1157,902

  97

  1 Return based on number of emergency patient journeys.

  Censuses
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of residents of England and Wales are estimated to have been missed by each census since 1971, taking account of any follow-up surveys.
  478
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 February 1993]: Results of the 1981 census post enumeration survey indicated a net undercount of about 0·4 per cent. of people present in private households. This degree of under-enumeration was of the same magnitude as that indicated by the coverage checks following the census of 1971.

  The 1981 census did not attempt to enumerate residents of households wholly absent on census night (except as visitors if they were elsewhere in the country). Taking this into account, the total under-coverage of residents in most census statistical tables was about 2·2 per cent. Allowing for residents in wholy absent households who were enumerated as visitors elsewhere in the country (1·3 per cent.), the proportion of residents not counted in the census was 0·9 per cent.

  Unlike the earlier censuses, the 1991 census sought to enumerate residents of households wholly absent on census night, either by obtaining the information when people returned to their home address or by imputation, so the analyses of under-enumeration are not directly comparable. The 1991 census validation survey identified sources of error which indicated that about 0·6 per cent. of residents in households had not been counted. From other sources, it is estimated that a further 1·3 per cent. of the resident population was missed for reasons not identified by this survey, giving a total of 1·9 per cent.

  Further details for the 1981 and 1991 censuses are given in annex A to the 1991 "Census National Monitor for Great Britain", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of infants aged under one year she estimates were missed by the census in(a) inner London, (b) outer London, (c) metropolitan districts, (d) urban non-metropolitan districts and (e) other non-metropolitan districts in England and Wales.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 February 1993]: The estimated proportions of infants aged under one year missed by the 1991 census were 8·8 per cent. in inner London, 4·1 per cent. in outer London, 3·7 per cent. in metropolitan districts outside London, 2·9 per cent. in non-metropolitan cities, and 1·9 per cent. in other non-metropolitan districts (3·0 per cent. in England and Wales as a whole). Appropriate allowances for these people have been made in compiling the provisional rebased 1991 population estimates.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will conduct a thorough review of the geographical distribution of census undercount for the final mid 1991 population estimates; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 February 1993]: The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is currently carrying out further geographical analyses of results from the census validation survey, and also of other factors that contributed to the provisional set of mid-1991 population estimates. The outcome of these investigations will be reported in conjuction with the final mid 1991 population estimates, to be published in June 1993.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Rent Deposit Scheme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1992 Official Report, columns 155–56, what conclusions he has drawn from the pilot rent deposit scheme in West London.

  Mr. Scott
  I am advised by the Department of Environment that the pilot project for a rent deposit fund operated by the Notting Hill Housing Trust is due to end on 30 June 1993. We await the evaluation of this project with interest.

  Total Benefit Expenditure by Broad Groups of Beneficiaries £ million 1992–93 prices

  Sick and Disabled

  Elderly

  S/T sick

  L/T sick and disabled

  Total

  Family

  Unemployed

  Widows and others

  1974–75

  20,045

  1,873

  3,629

  5,502

  3,062

  1,889

  2,101

  1975–76

  21,305

  1,874

  3,984

  5,859

  3,652

  3,092

  2,138

  1976–77

  22,923

  2,055

  4,472

  6,527

  3,886

  3,946

  2,097

  1977–78

  23,707

  2,103

  4,745

  6,848

  4,821

  4,369

  1,959

  1978–79

  24,789

  2,055

  5,014

  7,088

  7,293

  3,895

  1,944

  1979–80

  24,614

  1,652

  5,099

  6,751

  8,843

  3,572

  1,846

  1980–81

  24,924

  1,401

  5,130

  6,530

  8,170

  6,194

  1,745

  1981–82

  26,834

  1,328

  5,542

  6,870

  8,836

  7,530

  1,779

  1982–83

  28,179

  1,018

  6,134

  7,152

  9,435

  8,759

  1,742

  1983–84

  29,503

  1,326

  6,904

  8,229

  10,030

  9,524

  1,739

  1984–85

  29,889

  1,297

  7,499

  8,796

  10,358

  10,054

  1,729

  1985–86

  30,811

  1,280

  7,970

  9,250

  10,627

  10,498

  1,683

  1986–87

  31,953

  1,408

  9,001

  10,408

  10,890

  10,668

  1,645

  1987–88

  31,916

  1,479

  9,229

  10,708

  11,261

  9,202

  1,565

  1988–89

  30,558

  1,465

  9,645

  11,109

  11,215

  6,766

  1,480

  1989–90

  31,152

  1,488

  10,380

  11,869

  11,138

  5,227

  1,380

  1990–91

  31,961

  1,368

  11,433

  12,800

  11,079

  5,673

  1,368

  1991–92

  32,837

  1,128

  13,119

  14,247

  11,863

  7,886

  1,442

  1992–93

  34,484

  1,159

  14,859

  16,017

  12,926

  9,290

  1,418

  1993–94

  35,203

  1,168

  15,908

  17,076

  13,560

  10,038

  1,399

  1994–95

  34,754

  1,183

  16,777

  17,960

  14,046

  10,376

  1,371

  1995–96

  35,430

  1,210

  17,685

  18,894

  14,562

  10,265

  1,372

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of(a) disability living allowance reviews and (b) attendance allowance reviews that have been disallowed to date by whether the original award was for the higher, middle or lower rate in the case of disability allowance and higher or lower in the case of attendance allowance.

  Table 1: Awards of Disability Living Allowance between February and December 1992

  Single Awards

  Care component

  Mobility component

  DCB/

  Higher Rate

  Middle Rate

  Lower Rate

  Higher Rate

  Lower Rate

  Edinburgh

  562

  991

  2,158

  5,897

  1,466

  Newcastle

  227

  393

  1,200

  4,130

  487

  Leeds

  604

  1,085

  2,318

  8,487

  1,300

  Manchester

  494

  877

  1,863

  3,455

  647

  Bootle

  335

  694

  1,670

  6,300

  589

  Birmingham

  1,223

  1,573

  2,829

  9,312

  1,936

  Bristol

  436

  1,085

  1,248

  2,643

  1,024

  Cardiff

  392

  633

  1,244

  6,966

  857

  Wembley

  1,100

  1,455

  2,690

  5,073

  2,178

  Sutton

  1,332

  1,520

  2,014

  3,859

  2,438

  DLA Unit

  196

  212

  231

  2,410

  374

  Great Britain

  6,902

  10,517

  19,464

  58,532

  13,296

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide the figures used in constructing figure 10 in the social security departmental report published in February, together with equivalent figures for each year from 1970–71.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested for years before 1974–75. The available information is in the tables.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary fo State for Social Security how many(a) disability living allowance awards and (b) attendance allowance awards were made between February and December 1992, nationally and by disability benefit centre; and if he will provide a breakdown of these by higher, middle or lower rate.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the tables.
  481

  Table 2 (continued)

  Dual awards

  Higher rate care plus

  Middle rate care plus

  Lower rate care plus

  Higher rate mobility

  Lower rate mobility

  Higher rate mobility

  Lower rate mobility

  Higher rate mobility

  Lower rate mobility

  All rates

  Edinburgh

  2,415

  521

  1,511

  1,522

  2,335

  2,031

  21,411

  Newcastle

  1,178

  152

  474

  526

  1,283

  731

  10,794

  Leeds

  3,096

  546

  1,631

  1,179

  3,186

  2,135

  25,580

  Manchester

  1,650

  319

  775

  686

  1,158

  1,240

  13,169

  Bootle

  1,792

  421

  1,369

  819

  2,594

  1,401

  17,993

  Birmingham

  4,173

  827

  2,204

  1,991

  3,519

  2,965

  32,545

  Bristol

  2,064

  459

  1,058

  1,266

  965

  1,122

  13,353

  Cardiff

  1,548

  338

  1,107

  707

  2,121

  1,039

  16,969

  Wembley

  3,777

  840

  1,825

  1,890

  2,469

  3,096

  26,376

  Sutton

  2,692

  887

  1,298

  1,873

  1,485

  2,488

  21,862

  DLA Unit

  593

  78

  302

  158

  458

  165

  5,184

  Great Britain

  24,979

  5,389

  13,554

  12,616

  21,574

  18,411

  205,236

  Table 3 Awards of attendance allowance between April and December 1992

  DBC

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  Total

  Edinburgh

  11,492

  16,206

  27,698

  Newcastle

  4,047

  4,256

  8,303

  Leeds

  13,257

  18,511

  31,768

  Manchester

  8,548

  11,682

  20,230

  Bootle

  7,400

  11,428

  18,828

  Birmingham

  17,964

  26,073

  44,037

  Bristol

  11,360

  19,252

  30,612

  Cardiff

  6,453

  13,170

  19,623

  Wembley

  18,925

  26,887

  45,812

  Sutton

  16,227

  26,657

  42,884

  AA Unit

  352

  798

  1,150

  Total (All DBCs)

  116,025

  174,920

  290,945

  Notes:

  1. Unrounded figures have been used previously in PQs for DBCs.

  2. Monthly figures on AA only available from May 1992 and do not break-down nil awards into higher and lower rates.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number and percentage of disability working allowance claims that were renewed after the first six months and the number and percentage that were not renewed either because a request for renewal was not submitted or because the applicant did not fulfil the conditions of entitlement; and if he will provide a breakdown of claimants refused benefit at renewal stage on the grounds of failing to meet the disability conditions, the income test, the qualifying benefit conditions or other reasons.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible to say how many claims were not renewed at any one time because there is an eight-week period around the time the disability working allowance award expires in which a person can make a renewal claim. However, an analysis of the 1,502 awards made by 31 July 1992 shows that by the end of January 1993, 1,073 (71·4 per cent.) of these recipients had been given a second award. This figure is likely to increase when late claims are decided.

  By 29 January the number of renewal claims refused in each category was as follows:

  Reason for refusal

  Number of renewal claims refused

  Failure to meet the disability test

  21

  Failure to meet the income test

  126

  No qualifying benefit

  8

  Other reasons

  85

  482
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number and percentage of requests for reviews of(a) disability living allowance and (b) attendance allowance that remain outstanding.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.

  Total number received

  Reviews outstanding at end of January 1993

  Percentage of reviews outstanding

  Disability living allowance February 1992-January 1993

  67,953

  53,681

  79

  Attendance allowance April 1992-January 1993

  109,428

  28,812

  26

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to produce written information to claimants about their right to ask for a review of departmental decisions not to award compensation in respect of disability living allowance claims.

  Mr. Scott
  Payments to compensate someone for the lost use of benefit are made on an exgratia basis and there is no right of appeal against these decisions.

  However, any customer who believes that they meet the criteria for the award of a compensatory payment and who has had a payment refused may ask the DLA unit if the decision can be looked at again. (The criteria are that the delay has been at least 12 months for new claims or three for renewal claims; the arrears due are more than £50; and there has been clear departmental error which resulted in the delay).

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total expenditure of his Department on payments of disability living allowance and attendance allowance since the beginning of April 1992, excluding administrative costs; and if he will provide the total expenditure on mobility and attendance allowance for the same period in the previous year.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, spending on mobility allowance and attendance allowance for the year 1991–92 together with the estimated spending for disability living allowance, residual mobility allowance and attendance allowance for the year 1992–93 is in the table:
  483

  Actual spending 1991–92 (millions)

  Estimated spending 1992–93 (millions)

  Attendance allowance

  1,706

  1,458

  Mobility allowance

  1,062

  125

  Disability living allowance

  —

  1,905

  Total

  2,768

  3,488

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to respond to(a) the recommendation in the Social Security Advisory Committee's eighth report relating to the severe disability premium and (b) the other recommendations.

  Mr. Burt
  We have, of course, taken careful note of the committee's recommendations, but we are under no obligation to make a formal response and have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to reply to the application by Mr. Ernest Peel for his review of the mobility component of the disability living allowance which was sent to her Department on 2 July 1992.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 19 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 when he expects to reply to the application by Mr. Ernest Peel for his review of the mobility component of the disability living allowance which was sent to this Department on 2 July 1992.
  A further decision has been given on Mr. Peel's Disability Living Allowance (DLA) mobility component claim and was notified to Mr. Peel on 9 February 1993. I understand that the Disability Living Allowance Unit has already replied to you separately and in greater detail about his matter on 12 February 1993.
  The unfortunate delay in dealing with Mr. Peel's review application has resulted from heavy volumes of work following the successful launch of the new benefit. You will be aware from my letter of 19 October 1992 to all MPs of the problems the Benefits Agency has faced since the launch of
  484
  DLA and the positive steps being taken to improve the situation. Since then further steps have been taken to clear the current backlog of reviews. Measures taken include recruiting additional, and redeploying existing staff and the setting up of four additional processing units.
  I offer my sincere apologies to Mr. Peel for the delay in dealing with his claim. He has clearly not received the standard of service that he has every right to expect from the Agency. Such matters are not taken lightly and measures are being taken to improve the quality of service for all our customers.
  I hope that you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to reply to the application by Mr. K. J. Warring-Davies for a component of the disability living allowance following the medical examination which took place on 24 November 1992.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 19 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 when he expects to reply to the application by Mr. K. J. Warring-Davies for a component of the disability living allowance following the medical examination which took place on 24th Novcember 1992.
  A decision has been given on Mr. Warring-Davies' Disability Living Allowance application and notified to him on 11 February 1993. I understand that the Disability Living Allowance Unit has already replied to you separately and in greater detail about this matter on 18 February 1992.
  The unfortunate delay in dealing with Mr. Warring-Davies' application has resulted from the heavy volumes of work following the successful launch of the new benefit. You will be aware from my letter of 19 October 1992 to all MPs of the problems the Benefits Agency has faced since the launch of DLA and the positive steps being taken to improve the situation. Since then further steps have been taken to clear the current backlog of reviews. Measures taken include recruiting additional, and redeploying existing, staff and the setting up of four additional processing units.
  I apologise for the delay in dealing with Mr. Warring-Davies' case. Such matters are not taken lightly and measures are being taken to improve the quality of Service for all our customers.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Insolvency Legislation
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to reform the Insolvency Act 1986 in order to avoid the unnecessary failure of large numbers of companies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, insolvency laws cannot themselves prevent business failures but can provide mechanisms for assisting financially troubled companies to be rescued. Such provisions already exist.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. But is she aware that Sections 8 to 27 of the Insolvency Act, when taken in conjunction with Section 230, are all slanted heavily towards the ultimate liquidation of a company in difficulty? Would she agree that it would be far better were the United Kingdom to adopt something more approximate to Article 11 as applied in the United States?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that if a company can be saved it should be saved. Our companies are important and irreplaceable. The Act already has the company voluntary arrangement procedure which allows a company to come to binding arrangements with its creditors for settlement of its debts, and an administration order allows a company a period of time during which creditors' rights are
2
stayed. I had a look at chapter 11 of the United States legislation and was disappointed to find that only 17 per cent. of companies into chapter 11 emerged to continue.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that to the uninitiated such esoteric discussions are virtually unintelligible?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I feel much reassured that they are unintelligible to my noble friend too.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while such discussions may be unintelligible to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, the fact is that practitioners in this field are almost united in asserting that the 1986 Insolvency Act failed in its ambition to enable good companies to survive financial setbacks, and survive so that they emerged stronger? Therefore is not the answer that she gave remarkably complacent in the light of their views? Is she aware that though, as she said, insolvency laws cannot by themselves resolve such problems, Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue have proved to be the most intransigent creditors, and thousands of sound companies unable to re-schedule their debts go into receivership or insolvency?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I reject the noble Lord's suggestion of complacency. The Government continue to monitor the working of the Act, and suggestions for improvement are always given careful consideration. I question that the majority of practitioners are unhappy. I know that some are unhappy and have made their views well known; they have been listened to. But it is not for the insolvency laws to ensure that the taxpayers' money owed to the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue is not collected.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a major contribution to insolvency—putting aside the legal questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—is the late

3
payment of bills by suppliers of one sort or another? It is appropriate to pay tribute to the efforts made by the Minister herself in respect of commercial companies and the late payment of bills. But has she had a chance to scrutinise the behaviour of government departments themselves, particularly the Ministry of Defence? Does she accept that it would be reassuring to know that they are prompt in the payment of their bills?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I believe that this is one of the major pressures on small firms in particular and I am extremely concerned about it. It is appropriate that today there came across my desk a press release from one of the banks' factors showing that there was some evidence that there had been more responsible behaviour from large companies.
As concerns government departments, there is a commitment from the whole of government to pay on contract terms or 30 days. I have a personal commitment that if there is an example of this not being adhered to I shall take it up. I have taken up such matters and fortunately have managed to redeem the situation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the only thing that can save the unnecessary failure of large numbers of companies is the continuance of sustained and sustainable profit?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to reply "yes" to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I can give an example of legal aid of over £1 million being owed to a major firm of lawyers? That is for a major case and it has been outstanding for more than 12 months. Will she accept that often banks tend to take advice from accountants as to whether companies should be made insolvent? Frequently they do so with one objective in mind: namely, that they should be the receivers.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I look forward to receiving the details of the instance quoted by the noble Lord. Of course, I cannot comment on it at the moment. The situation with banks is that in order to lend money they have to have security, but it is important that the relationship between banks and small firms is restored.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the difficulties being caused to small pharmacies—which are, after all, small businesses—by slow payment in the National Health Service? Does she recall the exchange in the House about 10 days ago when we uncovered the fact that a considerable sum of money is owed to pharmacists for 90 days and many are being caused considerable difficulty through that? Will she undertake to look into that aspect when she is looking into other government departments?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to confirm to the noble Baroness that I am happy to look into any aspect which is outside contract terms.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, has the noble Baroness observed that all over London and in every city in the country new office blocks are standing vacant with the words "To Let" across their windows? The entrepreneurs who built them are now at hazard.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have powers of observation, but I am not certain how that question relates to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister said in her reply that she cares greatly for the taxpayer's money. Is it not true that money spent in assisting small and large firms may prevent the further erosion of our manufacturing base and save the taxpayer money at the end of the day?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I shall repeat for the noble Lord my statement that we consider it important to help keep going every firm we possibly can. Such businesses are important, particularly in the manufacturing area.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take one more look at Section 230 of the Insolvency Act? It lays down that administrators must be insolvency practitioners before they can take up their task. Will she bear in mind that the success of a business or its rescue is far more likely to occur under a person who is qualified as an entrepreneur than one whose basic qualifications are those of an accountant?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the best way out of problems for the benefit of the future economy is to trade out of them. I shall take the noble Lord's remarks back to my honourable friend, who has asked for a review of legislation in this area.

Crown Agents: Future Status
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the process of reviewing the options with regard to the future status of the Crown Agents, they will ensure that the credibility and integrity worldwide of the Crown Agents are retained.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government recognise the importance which Crown Agents' clients place on its credibility and integrity. We shall take full account of this in deciding the future status of the Crown Agents.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that the Crown Agents enjoy an exceptional international reputation? Does he agree that the best option in order to retain the substantial benefits that accrue to

5
the UK in terms of international trade and good will would be to find a form of privatisation of the Crown Agents which would preserve intact both the organisation and its reputation for impartiality, free from any direct commercial interest?
Lord Henley: My Lords, of course I recognise the international reputation of the Crown Agents. I should like to repeat the confidence that we in the Government have in them. What I must say to noble Lords is that we have not ruled out any option, as my noble friend Lady Chalker made quite clear in her Written Answer last December (Official Report, 15th December 1992, cols. WA 31–32). Obviously, at the moment I should not like to second-guess any decisions that might be made after the report comes through.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Crown Agents do extraordinarily good work? Can the noble Lord say, as nearly as possible, what is the object of the review of the Crown Agents which is causing some apprehension? Will it in the end enhance the ability of the Crown Agents to improve on the wonderful job that they are doing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I hope I made clear, no option has been excluded, including remaining in the public sector or privatisation, but we feel it is important to review the status of all the public sector to ensure that it performs as efficiently as possible.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, when assessing the future status of the Crown Agents will my noble friend ensure that the restrictions placed on it under the 1979 Crown Agents Act are removed? As I understand them, those restrictions are that the Crown Agents cannot enter into business with private entities, nor can it enter into joint ventures other than with ministerial consent.
Lord Henley: My Lords, all I can say is that I hope that my noble friend's remarks will be noted. At the moment I cannot second-guess decisions that will be made. I can only say that all options will be kept open.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that of a sample of £950 million worth of orders placed in the United Kingdom by the Crown Agents, £627 million was placed with suppliers with under 1,000 employees? Of that total, £285 million was placed with suppliers with under 200 employees. Will the noble Lord therefore ensure that, when reviewing the options, the benefits that the Crown Agents bring to small businesses is not overlooked?
Lord Henley: My Lords, certainly the benefits that it can bring to small businesses—and for that matter to industry or business throughout the United Kingdom—are well recognised and certainly will be taken into account.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will my noble friend assure me that if the Crown Agents is privatised in the normal form it will cease to be Crown Agents? Will he consider the option of the formation of a foundation, or indeed the formation of a Royal charter company?
Lord Henley: My Lords, a foundation is certainly an option—as are privatisation or remaining in the public sector. As I have tried to make clear, all options remain open.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister categorically assure the House that the principal criterion for the future of the Crown Agents must always be its contribution to development as a self-financing and highly efficient professional service and not as a profiteering organisation? Will he assure the House that the Government see the Crown Agents' special Crown status like that of the BBC—as a great asset for Britain—and that the Government will not give in to myopic nonsense from the Treasury or anywhere else?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made quite clear, I do not intend to second-guess any decisions that are made. What I do want to make clear is that what we see as most important is that the Crown Agents perform the tasks that it is allotted as efficiently as possible. That is the point of the review. We are not ruling out any option, be it privatisation, remaining in the public sector, or whatever.

Baghdad: Action Against Industrial Plant
2.51 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in asking my Question I wish to apologise to the House for not having been in my place when it was called three weeks ago. I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What words in what UN Security Council resolution in their opinion authorised the United States to attack an industrial plant in Baghdad with cruise missiles, an attack which the Prime Minister immediately endorsed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, action on 17th January by United States cruise missiles against a site which the Iraqis themselves admitted was associated with the Iraqi programme to develop weapons of mass destruction was taken to ensure that Iraq complies with its obligations under United Nations Security Resolution 687; a mandatory resolution under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter which set out the terms of the formal cease-fire and related resolutions.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, many in the House mould be much obliged if the noble Lord could go further and state under which section of Resolution 687 the bombing was carried out. I have not myself been able to find words in that resolution which justify armed attack on the territory of another state.
Lord Henley: My Lords, under Resolution 687 and under authority from the United Nations Security Council the Iraqis were warned of the serious consequences of non-compliance with Resolution 687. Further, on 14th January the Western allies and Russia gave the Iraqis a final warning. On 15th January they set a deadline later that day for unconditional agreement to the United Nations Special Commission flights. On 16th January the United Nations Special Commission submitted

7
revised flight applications. Iraq wilfully ignored all those warnings and imposed unacceptable conditions on the United Nations Special Commission flights. Iraq also continued to deploy missiles threatening coalition aircraft in the southern "no fly" zone. There was therefore no alternative but for the coalition to remove the threat to aircraft and to use force, as it did, to bring home to the Iraqis the need to comply with the United Nations resolutions. The operation was limited to achieving those aims.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that we on this side of the House are fully with the Government in their firm resolve in dealing with the Baghdad regime and that we therefore totally supported the air strikes? Does the noble Lord further agree that it is essential for the credibility of the UN that whenever serious military action is being taken in the name of the UN it must always be demonstrably with the full, specific, explicit and prior authority of the Security Council and never on the assumption that the Security Council will find a way of giving subsequent endorsement?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think it is quite clear from what I have said that we did have the full and explicit authority of the United Nations Security Council. Perhaps I may further say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord's Front Bench for their support for Her Majesty's Government on this issue.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if this action had not been taken there would have been a failure to implement Security Council resolutions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I too support the Government in the thrust of their policy in the action taken. Although the lawyers can argue about the actual wording of the resolution I support the Minister's interpretation. Will he take the thrust of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that it is of paramount importance that we ensure that all action is through the Security Council?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I had made that perfectly clear in my responses both to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. But again I am grateful for the noble Lord's support.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that there are still one or two United Nations and Security Council resolutions referring to the appalling suffering of many people in Iraq which have not yet been implemented? Ought not the Government to be prepared to ask when something will be done effectively—not merely through the passing of resolutions —by the United Nations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, as he has made clear on many occasions, that Iraq has a long record of denying basic human rights
8
to its own people. The Iraqi regime's appalling brutality and disregard for the welfare of its people led the United Nations Security Council to adopt Resolution 688 in 1991. That demanded an immediate end to repression in Iraq.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Government have not been able, either today or in answer to an earlier question about the bombardment of missile sites in the "no-fly" zones, to quote the particular words in the numbered resolutions which they maintain legitimated the use of armed force. Will they bear in mind that every time a member of the Security Council interprets a Security Council resolution to suit its own interests, whether passing or permanent, that member licenses others to do the same?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the plant referred to in the noble Lord's original Question was capable of producing nuclear weapons or material for nuclear weapons. The Iraqis themselves specifically admitted to some of the United Nations Special Commission teams when carrying out inspections that the plant was producing equipment for the nuclear programme. Some of that plant had then been sealed by the United Nations inspectors, but the International Atomic Energy Agency was considering whether it should be destroyed. Most people in this country and in the countries around Iraq will, I think, be profoundly relieved that it now has been so destroyed. The noble Lord asks for a reference in Resolution 687. If he cares to look at paragraphs 12 and 13 of Resolution 687, he will find that they specifically refer to nuclear weapons and the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, that is not an answer to my question.

Assisted Areas Review: Wansbeck
2.58 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to reach a decision on the question of development area status for Wansbeck.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend will appreciate that I cannot anticipate completion of the review of the assisted areas map as a whole by making an announcement about a particular area. We intend to announce the results of the map review as soon as possible, taking account of the outcome of the coal review and after the necessary clearance by the European Commission.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, this is rather like waiting for the last judgment. Does my noble friend agree that continuing uncertainty could cause a deteriorating situation in the North East to turn into a disaster? Will she please remind her right honourable friends that they have in front of them proposals from the area whereby local action and co-operation could save many thousands of jobs?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I would say to my noble friend that any of us who took

9
delegations on the question of the assisted areas map will be well aware of the importance of the early resolution of this matter. I am also particularly aware of the integrated needs in the Wansbeck area. However, I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House would wish to see expedient and hurried decisions made on the coal review, which is so important.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am a trifle puzzled as to how the coal review comes into this matter. While agreeing with the noble Baroness that we must not rush decisions, does she agree that in the present economic state of the country we must proceed very rapidly indeed if, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, says, there are not to be very serious job losses and, for that matter, business bankruptcies? The noble Baroness said that she could not anticipate, but can she give the area at least a little more hope by indicating approximately when it might expect to hear that a decision has been taken? It is not just a question of being a special case, it is also a question of policy in general. Does the noble Baroness agree that the sooner we can get the matter decided, the better?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the sooner we have resolution of this matter the better. The issue of the coal review comes into it because that will obviously have an effect on specific areas and must be taken into account. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish me to put a firm date to a matter on which the European Commission has an input.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness's department issues the final result of her review, will she bear in mind the necessity of there being absolute clarity as between the Commission and ourselves in this matter so that we do not get into a haggle over what is called "additionality" when the various grants are announced? The area concerned would not lightly forgive the Government if they imposed an undue delay as a result of continuous argument about the application of the regional development fund.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that assurance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, from what the noble Baroness has said, do I understand that a review of the whole country is taking place in relation to development area status? If that is so, does that involve London and the South East, which now has an unemployment rate of 11.7 per cent. with 1.4 million people unemployed?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the assisted areas map review covers the whole country and takes into account every area. It is based on identifying that third of the country with the worst unemployment figures.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while the coal review is going through this very long period of gestation, will my noble friend bear in mind that other
10
things are happening and that before long those in the area who might be able to help will be losing a very valuable opportunity?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the status does not change until the review. We are well aware of the need for urgency in this matter.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) (No. 2) Order 1993
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move that the order laid before the House on 28th January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the order in my name. In the Statement which the Secretary of State for Scotland made in another place on 11th January about the Shetland tanker incident, he explained that an exclusion zone had been declared under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, within which fishing and harvesting of farmed fish is prohibited. The exclusion zone was set up by the making of an emergency order under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
The purpose of that order was to ensure that, in the light of the MV "Braer" incident, there was no danger of fish or fish products reaching the market, if they could be hazardous to human health. Obviously no sensible fisherman would have fished in the area after the incident; and fish farmers affected by the spread of oil could similarly have been relied upon, voluntarily, to keep their products from the market. Indeed the Shetland Fishermen's Association imposed a voluntary ban before the order was made.
Nevertheless, we thought it was right to use the statutory powers that were available to give legal force to a ban on taking fish from the area. This was done after full consultation with, and with the agreement of, both the Shetland fishermen and the fish farmers. The imposition of the order was part of a three-pronged strategy which also included the establishment of arrangements to sample and test fish being landed on Shetland markets, and the setting up of longer-term monitoring arrangements covering both fish and water quality.
That background to the order is important. In setting up these arrangements the vital importance to the Shetland economy of both the fishing and fish farming industries were taken into account. They faced an obvious and immediate threat to their businesses. There was also the danger of much longer-term damage if these industries should lose market and consumer confidence. Therefore the order, and the other arrangements I have mentioned, were of the greatest importance in assuring commercial buyers and consumers that the greatest care was being taken over the quality of Shetland fish products, and correspondingly that the public should have every confidence in these products when they reach the shops. This approach had the full confidence and

11
support of the industries in Shetland, and so far as salmon is concerned, it is now reassuring that a number of representatives of large supermarket chains who have visited the islands are remarketing Shetland products.
Perhaps it would be helpful to say a little more about the arrangements which underpin the ban. These are based on a continuous programme of water and fish sampling. The first test is the state of hydrocarbons in the water. If the water is polluted, the pollution will then get into the fish. The critical test, from the point of view of food safety, is the fish itself and the accumulation of hydrocarbons in their edible tissue. A variety of fish and shellfish are being sampled continuously for analysis of hydrocarbons in edible tissue and also for taint.
Having summarised the general background, I will explain the details of events which led to the making of the order before the House today. During the debate on the emergency order on 26th January in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, explained that he had decided to extend the western boundary of the zone by five nautical miles from 1°30' west to 1°40' west.
This decision was based on test results which had shown above background levels of hydrocarbons on the west side outwith the original zone. The new order, which revoked the previous order, came into force on 27th January. This is the order which the House is to consider today.
The order is necessary if we are to continue to reassure both consumers and industry alike that the fish and fish products reaching the market are safe to eat and are of the usual good quality associated with the Shetland Islands. I have arranged for copies of maps of the new exclusion zone area to be made available.
Sampling of fish and water both from within and outside the zone continues to be carried out on a regular basis. The latest test results, while indicating a progressive reduction in the level of contamination, still point to the need to retain the zone for the present. Nevertheless we are keenly aware of the problems which this situation creates for the fishing industry.
In an attempt to alleviate economic hardship the Government have made available to producers a bridging fund which will be operated for the Government by Shetland Islands Council. Details of the fund's operation were announced in another place on 21st January by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The first payment of £1 million to set up the fund has been made to Shetland Islands Council.
It is important also that we assess the ecological effects of the incident and for that purpose the Government have set up an ecological steering group to consider strategies both in the short and longer terms on the impact of the incident on the local environment. On 26th January the Secretary of State for Scotland announced the terms of reference and the appointment of Professor Ritchie as chairman. A further announcement about the membership of the group was made on 18th February.
The group's initial purpose is to take an oversight of the various ecological and environmental initiatives which are now under way or are likely to be established on the group's initiative.
I trust that your Lordships will recognise that the order we are debating today forms part of a pattern of effective government action and is in the best interests of the fishing industry and the consumer. We will continue to review the need for the order and will lift it as soon as the evidence warrants it. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 28th January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House is most grateful to the Minister for dealing with this matter more fully than was the case in the Statutory Instruments Committee, which, as he Will be aware, met last week. Most people are very pleased with the Government's work and with the fact that they acted with considerable alacrity. People are particularly pleased about the approachability and the work of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, Sir Hector Monro. He told the committee that he would visit Shetland last weekend, so perhaps the noble and learned Lord is now in a position to answer some of the points raised in another place which the Minister there said that he would look into.
I understand that there were problems with the banks over whether they were likely to realise their threat of foreclosing on certain farmers and small fishermen. The Under-Secretary undertook to investigate this matter, particularly in reference to bridging funds, and he thought that there would be a simple way out of it.
Questions were also asked about how widespread the dissemination of the results of the monitoring would be. Some people in Shetland felt that they had not been given the results of the monitoring as early as they would have liked. I refer particularly to the local newspaper, the Shetland Times. No one in Shetland wants to cause a panic, and there has been no panic about this. The people there have been most steady; but the best way to stop panic is to make available as much information as possible. Perhaps the Minister can say whether his honourable friend was able to clear up that point.
I should like to make two other points. First, we seldom discuss Shetland without referring to the sand eels. They are so much a part of the food chain that I have been asked to find out whether the "Braer" incident had any effect on the recruitment of sand eels into Shetland, and the estimate of the local stock. My other point relates to hydrocarbons, to which the Minister referred. Is the Minister in a position to say at what level of hydrocarbons scientists and the Government feel that it would be safe to continue fishing in the area?
Leaving aside the wider question of tanker traffic and the problems of design and manning, to which I am sure that we shall return at greater length in this Parliament and perhaps soon in primary legislation, it is only fair to say that all the reports that I have

13
received from people who have been involved in this tragedy have been supportive of the work that the Government have done. They believe that the Government have worked fast and sympathetically, and I congratulate them on that.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too congratulate the Government on the speed and sympathy that have been evidenced in the actions that they have taken in relation to this situation. I dare say that is due to the very good vintage of the Minister who is in charge, Sir Hector Monro, assisted by his honourable and noble friends.
Perhaps I may ask first about the bridging funds. I believe that the Minister said that Shetland Islands Council will be responsible for the bridging payments, and it is most satisfactory that local knowledge will thus play an enormous part.
Can the Minister say whether the monitoring that has already been carried out shows a steady decline in pollution or is the decline variable? One remembers that 85,000 tonnes of oil were discharged into the sea. Do various areas differ in terms of the amount of pollution? Is the bottom of the sea around the coast —the shellfish area—particularly contaminated? Is the open sea gradually improving? It would be gratifying if the Minister can tell us that the decline in pollution is gradual or that no spots of contamination come and go. That is an important point.
The terms of reference of the monitoring group are also important, as is its funding. Will it be funded directly by the Scottish Office and not inhibited by a lack of cash? That is an important point because monitoring will be important for the longer term.
I agree entirely that the order is necessary for the good name of the products of Shetland. I hope that the Government will continue the good work that they have undoubtedly begun.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for explaining why the exclusion zone is now being extended. This touches on points that arose during the exchanges following my Starred Question on 9th February on the wreck of the "Braer" and its effects. As I understand it, the fish affected are seafish, shellfish and the salmon that are farmed in cages. By a strange turn of events, there has been a glut of landings of whitefish in Shetland in recent weeks, and that continues. Therefore, it is particularly the shellfish fishermen and the salmon farmers whose fish were confined in cages inside the exclusion zone who are likely to suffer financially by far the most. Sea fishermen can hunt elsewhere for their catches. The processors should not therefore be as affected as we had originally thought. I understand that slaughter arrangements are being made for salmon and that contracts have been drawn up with those who are to carry out the slaughter to ensure that is done in a way that will not cause any further pollution to the food chain.
At Question Time on 9th February we mentioned the effect of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund and the fact that it had already
14
undertaken to provide a great deal of compensation for the salmon farmers, who are the ones likely to lose the most. It is estimated that that will amount to between £8 million and £10 million. I understand that the director, Mr. Jacobsson, is well organised to provide interim payments for hardship where there are cashflow problems. I hope that the Government will ensure that salmon farmers' claims, together with the facts that are needed, are sent in as quickly as possible. The address is quite easy to remember because the IOPCF, which has a very good reputation for paying up in such situations, has its office in London beside that of the International Maritime Organisation, on the South Bank by Lambeth Bridge.
My noble and learned friend mentioned the fund that is being set up by Shetland Islands Council and the fact that the Government are providing money for it. That is to be welcomed, but is there to be co-ordination with the larger funds which are due to come from Mr. Jacobsson? Is there any allocation? Is it the case that Mr. Jacobsson and the IOPCF are dealing with the salmon farmers and that Shetland Islands Council and the Government are dealing with the others? I should be grateful for some information about co-ordination.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am sure that the people of Shetland will re-echo what has been said in this Chamber and the thanks to the Government for their quick and effective action so far. I also thank the Minister for his explanation, and ask two questions.
First, is it intended that the Donaldson Committee will make an interim report or will we have to wait for the final outcome? Secondly, am I correct in understanding that all applications for and questions about the bridging fund should be addressed to the local council and not to the Government or any government agency?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall respond to a number of the queries raised. The most important point to be addressed is that of compensation. I am grateful for the welcome given to the action the Government have taken. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that the bridging fund is being handled by the SIC on behalf of the Government. The IOPC Fund wrote to the Shetland Salmon Farmers Association on 17th February outlining the terms of an agreement to compensate for the loss of the 1990–91 intake within the exclusion zone. As soon as that is approved, letters will be sent to the farmers seeking a declaration from them that they agree to the destruction of the fish. That is important. As soon as the signed declaration is received, the fund will be able to authorise advances of 50 per cent. of the assessed value of the fish, based upon an agreed price per tonne. A proportion of such advances will be met from the Secretary of State's bridging fund, to which I have already referred.
Upon destruction, the full cost of which will be met by the insurers, the farmer will receive a further advance of some 25 per cent., and when the fish are weighed a 10 per cent. premium will be added to cover

15
the weight loss during the period when no feeding of the farmed fish took place. At that stage there will be a final reckoning.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, anxiety has been expressed about one bank not extending its overdraft facilities to an individual in respect of marketing prospects of the immature fish upon which longer term decisions have yet to be taken. That is not the fish that will be harvested this year but harvested next year. I understand that the IOPC Fund has written to the bank assuring it that in the event of the fish being unmarketable, or marketable only at a reduced price, the farmer will receive compensation for any loss that he may suffer. I hope that with that clear indication from the fund the bank will be assured.
Further questions I was asked related to the extent of the monitoring. I repeat, extensive monitoring is going on, not just within the exclusion zone but also outwith it. I was asked a question about sand eels. Sand eel spawning in the area of the spill will have taken place before the incident. Some herring spawning will take place later in the year. Any effect of the oil spill on sand eels will depend upon the extent to which the oil finds its way onto the sea-bed sediment where the spawn is or will be located.
Fisheries research vessels, as part of their work in the area, are taking samples of sediment, eggs and larvae for further detailed analysis. That work will obviously have to be considered carefully. The monitoring exercise is extensive. The department has deployed a team of scientists and a fishery research vessel to the Shetlands to assist the monitoring. The team is using facilities at the North Atlantic Fisheries College in Scalloway. The Torry Research Station has devoted a considerable part of its resources to the analysis of fish samples.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that since the end of January the department's marine laboratory has issued regular bulletins on its monitoring activities. They are circulated to interested parties in Shetland. So anyone who has an interest in the matter should have no difficulty in discovering what is going on. There is no intention of keeping things secret. In addition, monitoring is being carried out by local environmental health officers and the Shetland seafood quality control department.
I cannot predict when the zone will be removed. Clearly it will be important to take the best possible marine scientific advice. I can assure the House that there will be no removal of the exclusion zone until all questions about the quality of fish that might be sold are satisfied. We want to maintain the high reputation of the Shetland Islands for quality products. It is only when we are satisfied that that reputation can be wholly maintained that the order will be removed. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister give me any information about the graph of pollution? Is it in steady decline or are there variations?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I apologise for not mentioning that point. While the emulsifying effect of the violent weather caused the oil to disperse and break up in a remarkable way, my understanding is that there are some areas where there are concentrations of oil spill. Some of them have moved from the immediate vicinity of the wreck. The general indication is that, once all the oil had left the vessel, it dispersed quickly. I should not like to say that it has dispersed completely. Clearly there will be some which will be affecting the sea-bed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Recovery of Costs for Public Path Orders) Regulations 1993
3.26 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
The regulations were laid before the House on 18th January 1993 and, if approved, will come into force on 15th March 1993. The regulations are made under Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which enables local authorities to charge for services, subject to the making of the appropriate regulations. They will allow authorities to recover from applicants the whole of an authority's advertising costs and up to £400 in respect of its actual administrative expenses in making a public path order and, where an order covers more than one proposal, a further £75 for each additional path.
The orders provide for the diversion or stopping up of public footpaths and bridleways. They are made by county and district councils for a number of purposes, but primarily in the interests of the owner or occupier of the land or of the public (in the case of diversions), or to enable development to take place, or because the path is not needed for public use (in the case of extinguishment). The local authority must advertise such orders in at least one local newspaper. If there are no sustained objections the local authority can confirm the order. If there are objections, however, the order may be referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment and a public inquiry may be held.
The principle of charging is a simple one. A landowner or developer who may reasonably expect to benefit from the stopping up or diversion of a public path should be expected to pay for the order which achieves this. The power to charge is nevertheless discretionary and authorities can choose to waive part or all of the charge; for example, in cases of hardship or where a proposed diversion brings with it additional benefit to path users. Authorities are also specifically required to refund charges in certain circumstances; for example, where they fail to proceed with an order or where the order proves subsequently to have been made invalidly.
We believe that these regulations are needed and that the proposed charges are fully justified. They will

17
enable authorities to recover a significant proportion of their costs while providing applicants with a clear indication of what they may reasonably expect to pay. They will also encourage applicants to put forward proposals that are demonstrably of benefit to the public, which will gain general support and which may secure a reduction or waiver of the charge and should therefore help to secure positive changes to the rights of way network which will benefit landowners and users alike. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the Minister for that clear explanation of the order. I wish to emphasise, first, that we welcome the fact that the DoE is clarifying the position for local authorities in the light of the Richmond judgment. Until then, most authorities had charged for such orders but subsequently many felt unable to do so. Therefore we welcome the regulations in principle. As the Minister rightly said, they will benefit specific individuals. For the most part, we are not talking about the making of footpath orders for the benefit of ramblers or the public, although occasionally that might happen. We are talking about the making of orders which are for private gain, which is perfectly proper, and for private enjoyment. Therefore, it is right that local authorities should seek to recover their costs and they are right to charge.
My primary concern is that the maximum £400, plus the recovery of advertising costs, is too low. In cases where the order is uncontentious £400 may well cover the administrative costs. However, where an application may generate a public inquiry, where it is controversial and where it may involve lengthy consultation, a maximum charge of £400 nowhere begins to cover the costs, even though the gain may go only to one individual. After all, in highways legislation, for example, no maximum charge is levied for applications to magistrate courts under Section 116.
We should like to have seen a higher maximum limit. Local authorities need not be required to make that charge; it is merely that a higher maximum limit would ensure a more equable recovery of costs. If the costs are not recovered from the person enjoying the benefit they must be recovered from other charge-payers and taxpayers at a time when local authorities' budgets are capped.
I fear that, in consequence, in cases where a path order is controversial and where the other arguments are equally balanced, the officers of local authorities will be minded to refuse the application in order to avoid the costs of a contentious inquiry in respect of which the charge will not recover the outgoings of the local authority. We hope that the Minister will review the figure of £400, preferably annually. Furthermore, we hope that if the evidence suggests that that figure is reasonably low, as we believe it to be, the Minister will consider imposing a more realistic charge. Nonetheless, we welcome the order as a sensible first step.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her general support for the principle of the regulations. The Government believe that the figure of £400 strikes the correct balance and that a higher figure cannot be justified. Applicants should have some idea of the maximum amount that they can reasonably expect to pay. Furthermore, there should be some incentive for local authorities to keep down their costs. However, we have indicated that we shall review the regulations within two years of their coming into force.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) Regulations 1993
3.32 p.m
Lord Newall Lord Newall rose to move to resolve, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) Regulations 1993 and to lay in their place other regulations maintaining current opening hours for licensed betting offices on Saturdays.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the resolution as a result of the Government's recent decision to allow betting offices to open after 6.30 p.m. Between April and August they will be allowed to do business for six days a week until 10 o'clock at night. At the outset I must declare my interest, which is probably well-known in your Lordships' House. I am chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board, which is directly affected by the Home Office decision.
I make no secret of the fact that those involved in greyhound racing have been opposed to the extension of the licensing hours of betting shops since October 1991 when the Home Office produced a consultative document on the subject. The argument is that if, rather than going greyhound racing, more people are attracted to betting shops in the evening, attendance at the tracks will fall and they will lose a significant proportion of their revenue. Greyhound tracks are in the main in urban locations but horse-racing gathers its following from both town and country. Therefore, greyhound tracks are more vulnerable to losing some of their clientele to high street betting shops.
However, in respect of this measure the biggest difference between the two sports is the off-course levy. The Jockey Club and the Race-course Association are in favour of the Home Office decision because they are likely to receive more revenue from the off-course market if betting shops open in the evening during the summer months, when horse-racing stages some evening meetings. The crucial difference is that horse-racing benefits from the 1 per cent. levy on all off-course bets while greyhound racing does not. There is no off-course levy on greyhound racing and therefore the more money that is taken by bookmakers, and the more opportunities that betting offices have to compete with tracks and woo the punters away from them, the less greyhound racing stands to gain.
For those reasons we have opposed the deregulation of betting shop opening hours. We would not be

19
against the deregulation in principle, but greyhound racing will receive nothing for the increased use of its product in return for falling attendances. Greyhound racing track promoters make their money through the turnstiles, the bar and restaurant facilities and a percentage of the turnover from their own greyhound totalisator. A reduction in the number of punters going racing, in particular on Saturday nights, will have a devastating effect on the profit margins of all National Greyhound Racing Club tracks in the country.
For that reason I hope to persuade the Government today to remove Saturdays from the measure in order to give greyhound racing an even chance of survival; especially while it is still constrained by many regulations of the Government's making which prevent the industry from competing with the bookmakers on equal terms.
The arguments that we have put to government during the past two years about the likely impact on greyhound racing of the evening opening of betting shops have not been alarmist or over-the-top. They are a true assessment of what we fear will be the consequences for the industry. We have a precedent which is all too vivid in our memories; that is the introduction of betting shops in this country in 1961.
Between 1960 and 1970 National Greyhound Racing Club attendances at greyhound tracks slumped from 15 million to 7 million. Afternoon greyhound racing was wiped out without any compensation because of competition from betting shops. Greyhound racing then moved to become largely an evening sport. We predict that there will be a similar drop in evening attendances of at least 15 per cent. as a result of the evening opening of betting shops. In fact, the loss is likely to be greater because the introduction of SIS—live television—into betting shops in 1989 greatly increased their attraction.
When the consultative document was published, the racecourse promoters of the National Greyhound Racing Association conducted a survey of all 36 tracks in the country. The tracks were asked for the best estimates on their business if they suffered a 15 per cent. fall in attendance. All but two of the stadia which took part in the survey revealed that they would lose at least 50 per cent. of their profits. The GRA, the country's biggest greyhound racing promoter, pointed out that a loss of 10 per cent. in attendances would seriously deplete its profits, while a loss of 15 per cent. would wipe out half of its profits.
The fact that the evening opening of betting shops has been limited to five months per year—that is April to August —might limit some of the damage which will be caused to the greyhound tracks. We do not want to be prophets of doom, but your Lordships can imagine what even a fraction of these losses will mean for track closures and loss of jobs.
In order to understand the problem I must describe to your Lordships one more factor in the makeup of the commercial world surrounding greyhound racing, which will make the latest development even more difficult to live with.
The big three bookmakers—that is, Ladbrokes, Corals and William Hill—own a total of five greyhound tracks between them. Therefore, they will be in a position to supply evening greyhound racing to their shops at the fraction of the true market price. Those bookmaker tracks, plus a few others, will be in a position to enter into contracts with the bookmaking industry to provide an evening equivalent of the day-time Bookmaker Afternoon Greyhound Services —which is known as BAGS—which will supply the needs of off-course betting with televised racing to the shops in the evening, leaving the remainder of the tracks out in the cold. There is a real fear that greyhound racing could become a specialised bookmaker controlled sport, even more so than it is today, existing for the sole purpose of supplying betting shop needs.
It is for that reason, and only that reason that I hope to limit the damage by deleting Saturday from the provisions of the order, while leaving in the other weekdays. Every track throughout the country holds race meetings on Saturday nights, apart from Wembley which does not always stage greyhound meetings when it has commitments to other sports and entertainments. Fifty per cent. of the business of greyhound racing takes place at greyhound tracks on Saturday nights when attendances are the highest of the week. The clientele is different on Saturday evenings, when more people go to enjoy the restaurant and refreshment facilities. However, greyhound racing would still be affected by betting shop competition. Twice as much money is taken on Saturdays as on weekday race days. Therefore, it costs half as much to stage a greyhound meeting on a Saturday night.
In making the case for this change and how it would help greyhound racing, it is not my intention in any way to cause any difficulty to horse-racing. We believe that even the opening of betting shops will not necessarily bring the bonanza which horse-racing connections seem to believe. It is questionable whether there will be a large increase in the off-course levy to the benefit of horse-racing. It is likely that bookmakers will increase their coverage of greyhound racing in the evenings where their margins are higher —they make the same deduction on greyhound bets as they do on horse-race bets without having to pass back the 1 per cent. statutory levy—and there may be a similar pattern as there has been in afternoon betting, when the ratio of bets on greyhound racing has steadily increased to the detriment of horse-racing and its levy revenue. Greyhound races take about 30 seconds and are shown on the television about every nine minutes in the shops, providing bookmakers with a quicker turnover than horse-racing. It is also probable that betting shops opening in the evening could have a negative impact on attendances at evening horse-race meetings.
At present the situation is that not many horse-race meetings take place on Saturday evenings in the summer months. Therefore, if the present pattern of evening horse-race meetings is maintained, the levy would not be seriously affected if the betting shops remained closed on Saturday evenings. Recent discussions with the chairman of the Fixtures

21
Committee revealed that his opinion was that most extra evening horse-racing would take place mid-week rather than on Saturdays, but perhaps that has yet to be decided. There has not been a large increase in evening horse-race meetings. In the past five years it has increased only from 82 to 88. Therefore, there is no great demand.
I have often argued in this House that the only future for greyhound racing is for it to be treated in every way in a similar fashion to horse-racing. That means that there should be the ability to place a bet on a horse-race tote at one track for a race taking place at another; the ability to transfer tote bets from off-course to on-course; and last but not least, the introduction of an off-course levy or similar market mechanism for greyhound racing which will ensure that betting shops contribute to the sport from which they derive £1.6 billion worth of bets each year while returning virtually nothing.
This is not the time or the place to go into the arguments for a greyhound levy or some other kind of compensation such as that recommended by the House of Commons home affairs Select Committee the year before last. However, it is government legislation which prevents greyhound racing from obtaining a levy such as that returned to horse-racing.
I do not seek to prevent betting shops opening on weekday evenings. I am speaking only of Saturdays, when the staff are most likely to want to be at home. Many workers are women and they have been forced by the strong-arm tactics of large firms to work late in the evening. Their social lives and, above all, their family lives, will be greatly affected. They have been told that they must either sign their new contracts or face immediate retirement. Therefore, many have had to sign. Many letters have been written complaining of that. In fact, 4,167 staff were consulted about evening opening of betting shops and 4,046 voted against it. It is not a popular idea. The staff do not want evening opening and 96 per cent. of independent bookmakers do not want evening opening of betting shops. Not long ago the Association of Chief Police Officers advised against it. Greyhound racing does not want it.
Therefore, I ask your Lordships to support my Motion to maintain the status quo at least as regards betting shop licensing hours on a Saturday so that between April and August, as well as for the other seven months of the year, they are not allowed to open beyond 6.30 p.m. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House invites her Majesty's Government to revoke the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) Regulations 1993, and to lay in their place other regulations maintaining current opening hours for licensed betting offices on Saturdays.—(Lord Newall.)
3.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord's Motion. I shall not go along the road which the noble Lord followed because he has explained clearly to your Lordships his own particular interest and objections to the Government's regulations as they affect greyhound racing. He has argued that so clearly that I do not believe it is possible
22
to misunderstand what he says; namely, that the opening of betting shops on Saturday evenings would deprive greyhound racing of an important part of its attendance and be damaging to it.
I am not as familiar with dog racing as I am with horse-racing but I am happy to say that in recent years dog racing has become more of a family activity. Racecourse authorities have done a great deal to attract families and to make facilities for children much better. Racing is expensive because in this country it does not receive the kind of financial support from government which it receives in other countries; but that is not the problem facing us today.
Nevertheless, it is a wonderful day out if you can afford it. You can take in your children at reduced cost. The general standard of catering is better and the ability to park is very much improved. As the noble Lord said in his opening speech, evening racing has not grown to an enormous extent and yet there are popular evening meetings. For example, Windsor is a very well attended Monday evening meeting. Despite the obvious problems of traffic, many people go there for meetings which are, surprisingly, often conducted in good weather. Every year more and more people attend those meetings.
The Jockey Club's position—and I shall be interested to hear noble Lords speak on behalf of the Jockey Club—is understandable. I expect noble Lords who speak on its behalf will support the regulations and oppose the noble Lord's Motion because racing is in such a parlous financial state that any possibility of raising more financial support from the levy is welcome. The Jockey Club estimates that opening betting shops in the evening from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. will generate for racing an additional £5 million of revenue per year. That is not an enormous amount taken against the amount of money required for racing, nor is it a great deal in terms of the kind of money available to racing in other countries. However, for understandable reasons the Jockey Club has not taken into account all the factors which should have been taken into account when considering the Government's action in introducing those regulations.
Before I deal with the social implications of opening betting shops in the evenings on a Saturday from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., I should like to discuss the employees' position. I do not suppose that many of your Lordships have been in betting shops. The doubtful advantage of a Chamber like your Lordships' House is that there are hereditary Peers. I am not a reformed reprobate but I admit that I have spent some time in betting shops in my youth. I dare say that had I not been an hereditary Peer I would not otherwise have built up such a profile of public service to give me the opportunity to be here. However, I have a small advantage in this debate because I can tell your Lordships something about betting shops and how they operate.
By and large, betting shops are fairly squalid and dispiriting. Nobody, if they had an opportunity to do otherwise, would really want to go into a betting shop. Betting shops are largely populated by poor people who rarely have any means of transport, or indeed the inclination to go elsewhere to indulge their betting passion. Betting is without doubt not a family activity.

23
Betting shops are mainly populated by men. A few women go into them but they are mostly employees. Those employees are contracted to the big chains which now run betting shops. There are few small, individual betting shops left. Most of them are owned by Ladbrokes, Coral and William Hill.
When the betting shop employees were consulted about these changes and were asked whether they were in favour of working the additional hours from 6 p.m. until 10 p.m. a staggering 97 per cent. of them voted against the changes. The reason for that vote is quite simple. Women have family lives. That applies equally to single women as to married women. They all have the same entitlement to enjoy their private lives. Furthermore, there is the problem of safety at night. I challenge anyone to walk within a one-and-a-half or a two mile radius of a betting shop in this area on a Saturday night between the hours of six and 10 o'clock and feel safe. When one also considers that late night drinking is taking place in pubs, one realises what an unattractive prospect it is for employees in betting shops to find their way home after 10 o'clock on a Saturday evening, or to deal with clients who may have been drinking in the pubs.
Most people who bet are losers. Most people in betting shops are chasing their losses. The Government are telling us we need to reconsider our attitude towards family values. Is it desirable therefore, particularly in inner city areas, that men and women should be able to enter a betting shop on Saturdays at mid-day and continue punting—that is the popular expression—with their limited funds until 10 o'clock at night? Where is the safeguard for family life in that exercise? It is odd that the Government should seek to introduce these regulations and not think of their effect on family life.
Even in this neighbourhood I believe it is asking for trouble to open betting shops between six and 10 o'clock in the evening. That action constitutes a muggers' charter. I do not know what the police or the betting shop owners think about this measure. As regards employees' contracts, it is odd that the big three bookmakers asked their employees to sign new contracts of employment which involved longer working hours before these regulations were even known about. I suggest there was an exchange of information between the Government and the big three bookmakers before these regulations became a reality. How many licensing authorities in the kind of areas I have described would have granted licences to betting shops had they known their opening hours were to be extended? I believe a high proportion of those licences would not have been granted.
This measure offers no social benefit at all. In fact, much social benefit would be gained from supporting the noble Lord as at least that would ensure that on Saturday nights punters would have to stop chasing their losses and would have to wait fretfully until Monday. They may be in a bad mood or in a good mood, depending on whether they had won—I imagine they would mostly be in a bad mood—but at least they would be with their families.
24
Successive governments have always faced a dilemma as regards gambling. They have never understood gambling. In the early 1960s there were long and erudite discussions on whether roulette was a game of chance or a game of skill. Anyone who wishes to introduce legislation to govern gambling but who does not know whether roulette is a game of chance or of skill deserves to be relieved of his duties. Some dotty remarks have even been made about the lottery. Some people have said there is a difference between a gamble and a flutter. It seems to me that people who are responsible for introducing legislation to govern gambling are usually the least fitted to do so as they have no experience of it.
I believe family life will suffer as a result of these regulations. We are all concerned about the moral fabric of society and I believe that anything that disrupts family life and encourages men to become incarcerated in smoke filled rooms and encourages them to bet, or to borrow money from friends to bet —I can guarantee that any noble Lord who entered a betting shop today and stayed there for more than an hour would be touched at least two or three times for a loan—should be discouraged.
Betting shops are full of pathetic dreamers—I do not criticise that—people in debt and petty criminals. As I said, the atmosphere in betting shops is seedy and dispiriting. The Government should not lightly consider extending the hours in betting shops. I vouchsafe my support for the noble Lord. As I said, no one will benefit from these new regulations, certainly not betting shop employees. The punters will not benefit from the extended opening hours—at least, very few of them will—and their families will certainly not benefit from them. Neighbourhoods surrounding betting shops will not benefit from the extended opening hours as crime rates are likely to increase. As we have heard, the greyhound industry will not benefit from these new regulations. There may be a marginal benefit to the racing industry, estimated at £5 million, but I doubt whether it will be as much as that. Without doubt the bookmakers will benefit from the regulations, particularly the big three bookmakers that I have mentioned. However, I have had just about enough of watching bookmakers benefit from gambling.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to have this discussion, which has been provided by the noble Lord, Lord Newall. I have much sympathy with some of his arguments on the way greyhound racing is restricted, and is not treated on an equal footing with other racing. I shall return to that point in a moment. However, I do not have sympathy with his view that we should oppose the new regulations for the reasons I shall discuss.
First, I declare an interest—I am not quite certain how great an interest it is. I am a director of Wembley Stadium where greyhound racing takes place. The noble Lord, Lord Newall, may be surprised at the view I am expressing. I am pleased to follow the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. That was one of the most extraordinary statements I have heard on this

25
subject for some time. The whole of his argument seemed to consist of opposing betting in any form, at any time and in any place. That cannot be what the nation desires. I must say with respect that if the noble Viscount is of the opinion that all betting shops are squalid places, he cannot have been in one for some time. That is not my experience of betting shops. If opening betting shops on Saturday evenings constitutes a muggers' charter, that must be the case as regards opening them on any evening. If the noble Lord agrees with me, he ought to oppose the order in toto rather than restricting his opposition to Saturday evening opening.
I have a personal connection with issues concerning betting shops which goes back a long time. I served on the Watch Committee of Birmingham City Council as a young man. As a result of our experience of being unable to control illegal betting, the Watch Committee, with my agreement, and on the advice of a famous Chief Constable of the time, Sir Edward Dodds, we advised the Home Office that they should stop the nonsense of illegal betting for working people and make betting lawful. I am glad to say that was done, with many benefits for the majority of the public.
Nor do I necessarily take the view that bookmakers are to be castigated as they have been. I conducted an inquiry for some 12 months on behalf of the Labour Party immediately before the last election and drew up a policy which suggested that the bookmakers and the Tote should be recognised as some of the main financial supporters of horse-racing and should therefore have a proper place in the ruling bodies of that sport. That has not happened yet, but I still believe that that should happen.
There is a very strong case for equality of treatment of greyhound racing and horse-racing. The noble Lord said that horse-racing is a rich man's sport. In terms of the ownership of horses, I suppose it is. One of the attractions of greyhound racing is that it allows people of more modest means to own a dog and to have an interest, through ownership, in a sport which they follow and which they support financially. I hope that Ministers will take account of that. As people can own a dog and have an interest in the sport, there is an argument for asking the Government to go much further than they have to date in ensuring equality of treatment.
My principal reason for supporting the order and the reason for my fundamental objection to what the noble Viscount said, is that I believe that in this country we have to trust the people. One has to trust them in their betting just as in their drinking, and just as one has to trust people in many other spheres of activity. One cannot lay down regulations and restrictions for the public in general because one believes that one or two people have to be protected from themselves. I accept that there is some problem in that direction; but in order to protect a small percentage of people, one has to place considerable restrictions on the whole population. I do not believe that that is right. Therefore, I have sympathy with the
26
Home Office's desire to remove the restrictions if possible and to allow people to use their own judgment in these matters.
I turn now to the difficulties which greyhound racing faces. In introducing his proposal, the noble Lord mentioned the levy deducted by bookmakers and the Tote from all bets, which in the case of horse-racing is the lifeblood of the sport. In the case of greyhound racing, that money does not come back to the sport. Therefore, £20 million goes into the satchels of the bookmakers. That cannot be right. That £20 million ought to be made available for the development of the sport of greyhound racing.
When I conducted my inquiry on behalf of the Labour Party, I repeatedly asked those who want a levy board for greyhound racing what its programme would be and what it would spend its money on. Would it develop the tracks or increase prize money? We know exactly what the racehorse industry wishes to do with its increased levy. It is a criticism of the greyhound authorities that they have not yet produced a significant programme as to how they would spend the £20 million levy, which has been mentioned, if it was available to them. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newall, will persuade them that they ought to meet that challenge.
The question of television in betting shops has been raised. It is a problem for greyhound racing and I do not know the solution. If we extend the hours in the evening, it remains to be seen whether 10 o'clock is the right time. Although I support the order, I incline to the view that 10 o'clock is a little late. It may well be that market forces will provide the answer, and that people will not want to be in betting shops after 8 o'clock or 8.30 in the evening. I hope that the Home Office will keep the matter under review.
If television is to be available in betting shops in the evenings and greyhound racing is televised, there is anxiety that a monopoly might exist. Such a monopoly would not be in the interests of bookmakers or anyone else. That aspect needs to be considered carefully when the experiment takes place, and I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking in that regard.
I share many of the views expressed by the noble Lord in opening the debate as to what should be done. The restriction on inter-track betting in greyhound racing—which is permitted in horse racing—ought to be removed. Another small but not insignificant point is the requirement for a public auditor to be present at every greyhound race meeting. That seems to me to be expensive bureaucracy. I can see no justification for it and I hope that the Home Office will look at that matter in due course as part of their review of these matters.
There is also the question of the legislation which bans racecourse owners from involvement in bookmaking on race tracks. The greyhound racing authorities tell me they think that restriction ought to be removed because they consider that the ownership of certain tracks by bookmakers is contrary to such legislation and that there should be equality of treatment for both bookmakers and greyhound tracks.

27
Finally, I return to the point about the main clientele of greyhound racing. They do not come from the same social strata as the people who normally go to the more fashionable horse-race meetings, although I do not believe that can be said of run-of-the-mill racecourses. Racing, in my judgment, is pursued moderately and is a perfectly valid and honest interest for large numbers of people in this country. One only has to consider the amount of coverage given to these matters in our newspapers to understand what a great interest it is for a large section of our population. It is a perfectly legitimate interest which helps life along. Therefore, we ought to help our fellow citizens to enjoy the opportunity to take an interest and place a bet. We ought to do so in terms of equality between one part of the sport and another. We certainly ought to trust our fellow citizens to moderate their betting according to their means and to enjoy a modest flutter when they wish to do so. For all those reasons, I support the order which is before the House.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Leigh: My Lords, when I first received a plea from my noble friend Lord Newall for support for his amendment to the Government's draft order on the opening of betting shops to omit Saturday evenings, my first reaction was to file it away with my ex-wife's letters under "Rubbish for Burning". But yesterday I thought, "No, this is more important, and an ideal opportunity for me to make my maiden speech". I should therefore like to thank my noble friend Lord Newall for keeping me posted on this issue.
I then had to make a feverish search of my desk, which at the best of times is chaotic; but it was worse than that, after our "daily" and my wife had been at it under the guise of tidying up—at least, that is what they call it. Putting it as mildly as I can, I call it sabotage. First, I had to check that I had read correctly that the deadline for names to be included in the speakers' list for debates, etc., had been brought forward to 12 noon on the day of the debate. I then had to check the instructions for making a maiden speech, which I had put in a safe place—the trouble was that I had to find a safe place first. Having found both, and by then having forgotten most of my thoughts, I had to start again and find Lord Newall's plea, which by that time had been buried under my other searchings.
I found included in the instructions on making a maiden speech that their Lordships are not expected to refer to notes unless they are government statistics or similar. This reminded me of two separate occasions when I was invited to present a cup named after my brother to the same local village clubs for darts, dominoes and cribbage, of which I have only a scant knowledge. These invitations were something like six years apart. Having read the speech on the first occasion, I gave the second one off the top of my head. I was congratulating myself afterwards and I asked the club president how he thought it had gone. He said, "Very well, my Lord, except you said exactly the
28
same thing last time you were here." I have not spoken here before, and I hope that I shall not repeat myself this afternoon.
I do not hold myself up as a great expert on greyhound racing. Indeed, I have been only once in my life. I suppose the closest I came to it was 15 years of amateur steeplechase riding, which, together with the fact that I am a treated alcoholic, may account for a somewhat addled mind. However, be that as it may, I was shocked to learn that greyhound racing receives no benefits from the tax on betting, whereas a large proportion goes into horse-racing.
It seems that punters who bet on greyhounds have deductions made from their bets for the major benefit of other sports supported by the betting shop proprietors. I shall not insult genuine racecourse bookmakers by calling betting office owners "book-makers", especially as the betting shop proprietors, siphon a large amount of their profits into supporting holiday camps, casinos, hotels, beauty contests, besides cricket and other sports which are not associated with racing.
If greyhound racing cannot have Saturday nights solely to itself, surely it should have a share of the levy —even 1 per cent.—which might be more profitable than having a monopoly of Saturday evening racing. Having said that, I should like to again thank my noble friend Lord Newall for giving me this opportunity to speak today. I fully support his amendment and anything that will help greyhound racing flourish.
4.14 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, it is always an honour and a pleasure to congratulate a maiden speaker. As your Lordships know, it is always an horrendous experience having to speak to your Lordships on the first occasion. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, spoke with great aplomb in military terms, in military voice, and I am certain that we shall hear a great deal from him in the future. He certainly made his points pertinently. He comes from a line of true military background, his father having been in the 11th Hussars, Lord Newall's regiment, so there is obviously a link there, and he is currently married to the daughter of an 11th Hussar, which is a great tradition to carry forward.
He probably will not remember this, but he once saved one of your Lordships a great deal of embarrassment. When one of your Lordships found that he had not got the correct set of robes for the State Opening of Parliament, the noble Lord lent his robes at the last moment. It may have been his wife who did it, I am not certain. The noble Lord concerned is not at present in his seat, but he turned up appropriately dressed in Lord Leigh's robes. I hope that he will be showed the customary help and good behaviour in your Lordships' House, and we look forward to seeing and hearing him in the future.
I apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place at the beginning of this debate, but I was otherwise detained in a Select Committee. I hope that I shall not repeat a number of things that have already been covered in this debate. I start by saying that the

29
essential ingredients of any racing occasion are animals, be they greyhounds or racehorses, and of course a venue. If you have few people attending a meeting it does not make for a very good meeting. If you have a lot of people it makes for a good occasion. The race meeting or greyhound meeting goes well as a result of a good attendance, and of course the organisation benefits financially.
The Home Secretary's initiative by way of a Statutory Instrument approved by the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments is a most welcome boost to the horse-racing industry, an industry that is suffering tremendously at the present time. Already a number of successful meetings that have been referred to will be able to expand their contribution to racing finances. We are told that the gain to horse-racing will be in the region of £12,000 per fixture, leading to an overall net gain of some £5 million. The horse-racing industry has been presented with what I would term a window of opportunity to improve its financial position.
I point out that 30,000 people rely on the horse-racing industry, which is very much dependent on people buying and owning race-horses. Despite what has already been said about horse-racing being the sport of rich people, I put it to your Lordships that there are more and more racing syndicates being drawn up and brought into existence every day. Anyone who is interested in horse-racing—and I speak about horse-racing as applied to greyhound racing—can own part of a horse, or have an interest in a horse or a greyhound. Therefore, I do not go along with the argument that it is the sport of rich people.
Having said that, facts have to be faced. There is an economic decline, which is affecting racing. In 1991–92 there was a 10 per cent. decline in the ownership of race-horses. It looks as though that decline is set to continue in 1993. I believe that the order that the Secretary of State has brought into existence will benefit those employed within the industry—which I would point out to the House is the sixth largest employing industry in the country—and it will also be of benefit to the levy.
We have already heard a great deal about the levy. We are all aware that greyhound racing does not benefit from that levy because of government legislation. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, that we should earnestly consider going back to the Government and asking for greyhound racing to be involved in that levy. I do not believe it to be beyond the bounds of possibility that there should be a levy for greyhound racing in the future.
Racing, be it greyhounds or horse-racing, is a family activity. I do not agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that betting shops are squalid places. There are squalid betting shops, but on the whole the conditions and standards of betting shops, particularly of the big betting chains, are improving. I regularly visit a betting shop opposite my office in Reading, not as a big punter but as a small punter. The shop is a small place run for the community. Although the majority of people in the betting shop are men, many are old age pensioners and those who enjoy listening
30
to the commentary and having a small punt of a few pence. I do not believe that that harms anyone; and to prevent it would be a great pity.
My anxiety relates to security and drink. Keeping betting shops open until ten o'clock at night presents a security problem for the people who work in the betting shops which needs to be carefully watched. The betting organisation realises its responsibility for looking after employees. Alcohol-related problems too could increase as a result of keeping betting shops open late at night. However, for the good of the sport, and for people's enjoyment in the future, it is right and proper that betting shops should remain open for the limited period during the summer months, otherwise betting will go underground. People will bet by telephone to bookmakers and the losers will be the sport, the levy and the bookmakers. I therefore do not go down the same road as the noble Lord, Lord Newall. I support the original Motion with a number of reservations.
4.21 p.m.
The Marquess of Zetland: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on his entertaining and amusing maiden speech. First, I declare an interest as a current steward of the Jockey Club and as chairman and manager of a northern racecourse. Therefore to a certain extent what I say represents the horse-racing industry as opposed to the greyhound industry.
Your Lordships will be aware that our racing industry is going through hard times. That is not exclusively due to the recession. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for again going over old ground. However, I believe that it is important that we all realise that every successful racing industry in the world depends to a large extent for its finance on the betting that it generates. In the United Kingdom racing receives a far smaller proportion of that betting turnover than in any other country, due largely to the fact that large chains of bookmaking firms dominate the marketplace. Those bookmaking firms have shareholders who naturally are thirsty for profits and dividends.
The receivers of what is left over from betting turnover, once the punters have been paid out, are threefold: the Government, in the form of betting duty, the bookmakers, and racing. From a total spend of just over £4 billion last year, the Government took a sum approaching £350 million, bookmakers collectively took £160 million, and racing £47 million. Clearly there is a serious imbalance.
Racing was extremely grateful for the famous double act in last year's Budget when the Home Secretary and the Chancellor between them managed to reduce the rate of betting duty by a quarter of 1 per cent., and to pass on the benefit of approximately £12 million to the racing industry. That was hugely appreciated by racing. It was whispered that the go-between was a certain noble Lord sitting not far from me now on the Cross-Benches. However, if he and the Government can be persuaded to repeat the

31
exercise, but this time to reduce the rate of betting duty by 1 per cent., then it is fair to say that racing could get off the Government's back once and for all.
However, in the meantime racing continues to suffer serious problems of underfunding. Its case is not being helped at present by the very real worries over VAT or by the prospect of a national lottery, which inevitably will divert money away from betting on horses and will therefore deplete the levy on which racing depends.
It is therefore hardly surprising that the racing industry has welcomed enthusiastically the Home Secretary's decision to allow the opening of betting shops in the evenings between April and September. Racing is extremely popular on summer evenings. The fact that people will now be able to bet off-course on those evenings will bring a badly-needed boost to the industry in the form of increased betting turnover and, therefore, of increased levy. Saturday evening is of course the most popular evening of the week. We would not wish the betting shops to be shut on Saturday evenings.
We support the Home Secretary's measure because it will give greater choice to the punter by allowing him to bet on every race meeting that takes place. We support too the move towards the deregulation of our gambling laws which we believe are so outdated.
Racing desperately needs owners. Without owners there is no racing. There is a belief in certain circles that owners grow on trees and will always be around. Unfortunately, that is simply not so. The modern owner requires to know that if things go right he will receive at least some return on his investment in the form of a reasonable level of prize money. The increased levy which will result from the extra betting turnover generated during the evening opening of betting shops will undoubtedly help to increase prize money levels—most likely by about £6,000 per fixture as opposed to the £12,000 to which my noble friend referred. That will help enormously to retain the current level of owners. It may even help to attract new ones. It is absolutely crucial that we encourage owners to come into the industry if racing is to survive and prosper.
I confirm what my noble friend said. I emphasise the part that our racing industry plays in the rural economy. As your Lordships have heard, the industry employs 30,000 people directly and 100,000 indirectly in ancillary businesses. Noble Lords have heard that the racing industry is the sixth largest employer in the country. If racing goes any further into decline, those jobs will be threatened and the knock-on effects on the rural economy will be very damaging.
For those reasons we argue against the proposal of my noble friend Lord Newall that Saturday evenings should be omitted from the scheme.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, noble Lords may be surprised that a Scot, an accountant and an enthusiast for virtually every sport except that of four-legged racing—I refer to dogs and greyhounds—speaks today. However, my noble friend Lord Newall
32
presented his case professionally and well. Indeed, I became mildly interested when I heard that bookmakers' shops and betting shops were to be opened late in the evening on Saturdays during the summer.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Leigh on what I am sure noble Lords will agree was an outstanding and witty maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear many more speeches from him.
My noble friend Lord Newall asked that the measure before us today should give the greyhound racing industry an even chance. First, despite everything that I have heard from speakers with great experience of the horse-racing industry and consequently of betting shops, will the order give the greyhound racing industry the even chance that my noble friend seeks? Secondly, will the extended opening of betting shops do as much as we have heard to promote horse-racing? Thirdly, is the amount of evening racing on Saturdays so crucial as to require extended opening every Saturday evening in the summer months?
I was particularly struck by the outstanding remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I am not an habitué of betting shops but I was interested in his description of smoke-filled rooms with male-dominated populations. I hope that he was not referring to your Lordships, let alone the people touching one for loans. When either walking or driving along the streets and finding betting shops one similarity comes to mind, that is, the windows tend to be blanked out. It appears to me that the only other shops of this nature are sex shops. To me, both betting shops and sex shops seem to involve an outpouring of a great deal of money to not much purpose, especially in view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has said. I accept that the bookmaking industry provides a great deal of support to the horse-racing industry. We have heard from my noble friend and others that there are five greyhound tracks that are part of the bookmaking enterprises. There is a great deal of interest in the bookmaking industry at least in terms of giving some support to the greyhound industry.
I was interested by the moving tribute paid to betting shops by the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby. He made everything appear to be sweetness and light. He was a great proponent of late opening. However, the noble Lord mentioned one obstacle, and I wonder whether the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will be able to confirm that extended opening as proposed in the order has the full support of the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is one point on which I should like to be reassured. With that, I wonder whether my noble friend who is to reply for the Government can leave to the greyhounds the advantage that they may have and may seek with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Newall.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if for a few minutes I intrude myself into the space that is allowed on the list of speakers. I should like to say how, with others of your

33
Lordships, I enjoyed the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Leigh and was engulfed with sympathy when I heard of the terrible intrusions that had been made upon his desk. I hope that it will be better defended in the future.
I would have supported this Motion had it not been for my recently-expressed conviction as to the jeopardy in which horse-racing now found itself and my very strongly held view that something needed to be done about it. Therefore, even this marginal measure of support is to be welcomed, but I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will warn the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against extending what I have previously described as the catalogue of piffling measures that they have put forward to help racing, as opposed to taking effective action.
I was interested to hear by way of some interpolation the noble Viscount's account of the horrors of betting shops. I am not a regular frequenter of betting shops, but I recall that when the measure was first going through Parliament I listened with fascination to the debates that took place in another place. They seemed to be indicative of the schizophrenia that regularly affected governments when they embarked upon dangerous reforms. At one and the same time they were resigned to the need for betting shops but determined to make them as uncomfortable, repulsive and unwelcoming as possible.
The Government's amendment of the regulations will undoubtedly benefit bookmakers. What is less certain is how much of that benefit will be passed on by bookmakers to racing. Very few people love bookmakers, for the obvious reason that bookmakers are regular winners and punters are regular losers—I speak for myself. I am not sure how much the bookmakers are concerned with the present parlous state of the industry or, if they are concerned, how much it has led them to increase their financial support, or even to support those arguments put to the customs and excise to relax their present narrow view. I make no apology for repeating the view that has already been expressed in this House that if the racing industry and all those whom it employs are allowed to go into terminal decline—and it is nearly in that state already—the epitaph carved on the gravestone of the industry will undoubtedly be "17.5 per cent. VAT did for them". The Government and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will be cast in the role of monumental mason and undertaker and will be remembered for the way in which they performed that role.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, perhaps I may also be forgiven if I intrude into the gap in the speakers' list. I should declare an interest. I am chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board and I also sit as a member of the Horserace Betting Levy Board.
I begin by joining others of your Lordships in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on his most instructive and entertaining speech. I hope to
34
hear him often. I do not think that P.G. Wodehouse could have described better the state of his desk or his family fight over it. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to illuminate us with wit as well as information.
I was amazed by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who seemed to be recounting some visits to queer places in Victorian times. He was completely out of date about betting shops. It is true that there may be some "grotty" ones here and there; but the punter is provided for by bookmakers—and we have 160 betting shops of our own—by way of entertainment. Consequently, as the Government started to relax the rule which determined that betting shops were to be squalid, hole-in-the-corner places that people went into furtively and one was not to know what was going on inside, so the shops were allowed to serve non-alcoholic beverages and provide television screens showing the position race by race. The quality of the betting shops dramatically improved.
The noble Viscount said that he did not see women in betting shops. I go to a great many betting shops. The percentage of women going into betting shops is rising all the time. In the main, the shops are very comfortable and quiet places. One does not get very much roughness or violence in betting shops, apart from those occasions when people come in with guns, or mock-guns, in order to try to raid the till, as happens with any other establishment.
The idea that in some way betting is immoral is absurd. Bookmakers are part of the entertainment industry. After deduction of the levy and tax, the gross amount that the punter may expect to lose is about 20 to 21 per cent. or just a little over one-fifth of what he has bet. We know from experience that the remainder that is left to the bookmaker after all the tax and expenses that he has incurred is probably not more than 3 per cent. per shop. Betting is a high, moral occupation. Your Lordships may laugh, but I have even convinced an archbishop of that point.
Somebody who spends his time in a betting shop is not spending it in a pub—one is not allowed to drink alcohol in a betting shop. Placing a bet is one of the few democratic decisions a person can make. He is told what to do by the foreman; or he is told (or used to be told) by his shop steward to go on strike, and his soul is not his own; when he gets home, he is probably told to do the washing up. In a betting shop he can do exactly what he likes, and can study form. It is much more difficult getting that right than doing The Times crossword puzzle. He studies form, the course, the nature of the owner, the trainer and the jockey, and whether the horses are trying that afternoon. He makes his own mistakes and starts again next time round having learnt from his mistakes. Every now and again he gets a dramatic coup and tells you: "I have been following that", or, "I believe the horse is really trying today; it has a really good chance", and "My God, it's marvellous! Odds at 15 to one". That makes him very happy, like the fisherman who catches the very big salmon.
It is harmless entertainment. I have been told of dramatic cases of people touching you for money in betting shops. But all they ever touched me for was a

35
tip. They seemed to think that I would know what was going to win. If I knew what was going to win, I would not bother to go round betting shops.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving way. I invite him to come to some of the betting shops that I go to; I shall certainly go to some of those that he visits. The point is surely that, even given the satisfactory environment described by the noble Lord, should not the women and the men who go to his betting shops be somewhere else other than a betting shop between six o'clock and 10 o'clock on a Saturday night? Are there not more desirable things that they could be doing, such as going home to their children and their families?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I understand the noble Viscount. He belongs to that great tradition of the middle and upper middle classes, like Beatrice Webb and others. They thought that they knew better how the working classes should spend their money and their time than the working classes themselves did, and that they should be protected against themselves; therefore all temptation must be removed from them, otherwise they would get into severe trouble. That has always been great nonsense. But it is endearing to see that the Liberal Party still retains its wonderful intention to reform everybody and prevent them ever doing anything wrong.
To go back to what happens in a betting shop, it is a harmless entertainment of an intellectual kind. A chap can make up his own mind and profit from his mistakes. That is why so many people go to betting shops—and, incidentally, why so many women go there. The atmosphere has altogether changed from what it was some 10 years ago. We should stop believing that betting is an awful thing. By the way, not only does it stop people going into pubs but possibly stops them from doing things that are much worse, such as stealing motor cars and driving them recklessly, and killing other people while they do it. Betting shops are one of the good things in our society, not one of the bad things.
I turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Newall, said. I am very fond of the noble Lord. I believe he would agree that I have tried to help as best I can to get the greyhound racing fraternity a fairer share of what is going. Indeed, we got the extra bit taken off the tax. What the bookmakers and the Tote are giving to the greyhound racing club is mainly voluntary. I led the way and put the cat among the pigeons by saying: "Nobody else is going to do it. We have already set aside our quota and the Greyhound Racing Association can do what it likes with it. Let us get it off the ground".
Roughly speaking, I believe the greyhound racing club will get some £3 million a year as a result of that reduction in the tax. It already gets about £4 million a year from the "BAG" (the bookmakers' afternoon greyhound racing service). I should mention that I am also a member of that organisation and declare my interests. We pay certain selective greyhound tracks large sums of money to be allowed to take pictures and
36
so forth from them. I know that some of the tracks are owned by bookmakers. It does not make any difference who owns them. All bookmakers contribute to the amount that goes under that agreement to the greyhound track owners.
When we get evening betting, as I am sure we shall, there should be another substantial amount available to the greyhound side of the business. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Newall, would disagree with that. The Tote estimated—and we have rather good statisticians—that there will be an increase of leviable turnover of something like £5 million, arising from the levy board. Out of that, I reckon that greyhound racing will get up to £200,000 of the addition. So it is not doing quite so badly as the noble Lord was anxious to portray it as doing. He was quite right to fight his corner and make sure that everybody understands that it has not altogether had a fair crack of the whip.
I do not believe that showing greyhound racing in the evening in betting shops will make the difference he fears to attendance at greyhound meetings. It has usually been the case that when you show anything on television people get more and more interested in seeing it live, as they do Wimbledon, football, or whatever else it may be. I suspect that, contrary to his pessimism, we may find that more people become interested. It will very often be a different kind of person going into the betting shops in the evening —one who will say: "I shall go to a greyhound track and have a look to see what it is like. It is rather fun". Indeed, it is rather fun. It is very agreeable to eat in some of the restaurants provided at the better tracks and watch the greyhounds go by very speedily. I do not think the noble Lord needs to be as worried as he appears to be at the moment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to point out that speeches in the gap are by convention, brief, short and to the point. The noble Lord has already spoken a lot longer than many people who put their names down to speak.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I apologise; but I think I have a certain knowledge of the matter and it might be of interest to the House.
As to the difficulties of the staff working in the evening in betting shops in the summer, I agree that is a serious point. We shall certainly be taking precautions at the Tote to make sure particularly that female staff—and it may apply to male staff as well —are sent home in cabs, or that other measures are implemented to protect them in the rougher areas. Nobody will be compelled to work terrible shifts. It will all be done by agreement. People will not be put in a desperate position thinking that they will lose their jobs if they do not do exactly what the betting shop owner says. That will certainly not be the case so as far as we are concerned. I am sure that will be the general approach in the business.
As the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, very effectively said, there is a case in the difficult time that horse-racing, which is an enormous employer, is having, for that additional help. It will be a real

37
benefit. It will be another £5 million or so going into the levy. It does not in any way damage my view of greyhound racing. It gives it more money as well. I hope that the House will not agree to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Newall, much as I admire his stance.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Weinstock: My Lords, the gap in the list of speakers is becoming a little crowded, and I apologise for intruding further into it, but I shall not keep your Lordships long. This has been a wide-ranging debate and I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on his maiden speech. A great deal of ground has been covered by your Lordships, but the Motion is about whether betting shops should be open on Saturday night. I have heard nothing from your Lordships which suggests that Saturday night is, in principle, different from any other night. Nor have I heard anything which suggests that people working in betting shops on Saturday night would be exposed to any more danger than people working anywhere else on Saturday night.
It was suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that people who go to betting shops, these Dickensian dens of vice and depravity, are in some way inferior to people who go to other places. That seems to me slightly insulting. I am sorry that it should have been suggested. I do not know that the people who frequent greyhound racing tracks on Saturday nights would, from social or other points of view, be considered to be "better class" people. I see no reason to suppose that it should be so.
The fact is that horse-racing is in serious financial straits, as we have heard, and badly needs the extra revenue which may accrue as a result of the Saturday night opening of betting shops. If I may say so with respect, the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, does little more than suggest that people should be driven out of betting shops into greyhound-racing tracks. Of course, that argument could be applied to any occupation. If greyhound racing needs the money and that is a good enough reason, why should we not close cinemas at six o'clock on Saturday night or any other form of entertainment? It seems to me to be a parti pris argument which is not sustainable. Essentially it involves infringement on the liberty of choice of the individual. I urge your Lordships to reject the Motion.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will permit me not more than three minutes to clarify something which I thought I understood before I listened to the debate. Can the Minister, in his reply, tell me whether I am right in the following proposition? British people are greatly dedicated to racing various kinds of creatures, particularly pigeons, dogs and horses. However, those who race pigeons do it under their own resources; and those who race dogs and horses need some kind of subsidy for the benefit of the sport. That subsidy comes from the pockets principally of those who bet. In the case of horses, it comes indirectly by means of a levy, and in the case of
38
dogs it comes directly by people coming through the gate and paying for entrance principally on nights when betting shops are shut.
Is not this debate about whether people will desert greyhound-racing in sufficient numbers on Saturday nights, for the betting shop, and so entirely disable that industry? If that is the question before the House at the moment, as I believed it to be and still hope that it is, can the Minister tell us—and give great satisfaction to my noble friend Lord Peyton in the process—whether the way of rescuing horse-racing is not by removing the subsidy from greyhounds and placing it on horse-racing but by removing value added tax? It seems to me that that would be a constructive way of avoiding this difficult issue and we should not have to pursue the Motion at all.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, on these Benches we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for facilitating this debate on an issue of substantial importance which will affect the lives of significant numbers of people. It is particularly important since the proposed changes in the regulations went before another place on 10th February as a statutory instrument. I think that it is vitally important that the proposals are fully debated in your Lordships' House and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for giving us the opportunity to do so.
Unlike many noble Lords, perhaps I may declare a more or less total lack of interest in both horse-racing and greyhound-racing. That is not for moral reasons, it is just that I spent three years as an undergraduate studying the theory of probability. Having been set a number of essays on the Monte Carlo fallacy, I assumed that betting and gambling was, in the proverbial phrase, a mug's game and I was not going to get into it. Therefore, I am afraid that all the impartiality I bring to this debate is as a result of more or less total ignorance.
What I bring to bear on the issue is a general principle in favour of the libertarian outcome, that on the whole people should be free to live their lives in their own way provided that in doing so they do not harm the interests of other people. In this case, it seems to me, we are concerned with extending the freedom of choice to the consumer or the punter. The question is whether that extension of freedom of choice to the punter will harmfully affect the interests of others.
What we have to do, in judging the Motion, is to consider three kinds of harm that have been identified by noble Lords in the debate. The first is the potential harm to the greyhound industry; the second is the potential harm to those employed in betting shops; and the third is the potential harm to the environment within which betting shops operate and are situated—in inner cities and on estates.
There is no point in my repeating in detail the point made by the noble Lord in his opening speech, explaining what he thought would be the likely consequences of the proposed changes on the greyhound-racing industry. I shall reiterate one or two

39
points from the range of comments he made because they are worth bearing in mind when noble Lords reflect on how to vote, if the noble Lord presses his Motion.
First, as he pointed out—and this is undeniably true—the 15 per cent. drop in attendances at greyhound-racing meetings in the two years following the introduction of betting shops in 1961 wiped out afternoon greyhound-racing. Attendances at those meetings dropped from 15 million in 1960 to 7 million in 1970. Of course, it may be difficult to say that the introduction of betting shops was the sole cause or factor. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to deny some significance to that development.
The industry expects a similar drop of at least 15 per cent. in evening attendances as a result of the evening opening of betting shops. The loss is likely to be greater since the introduction of television into betting shops in 1989. That greatly increased their attraction. That is the first point: the likely effect on the industry itself. The noble Lord made a good case, I thought, for being seriously worried about it.
It is easy to say that that is just a defence of producer interests and that we should be more concerned with the interests of the consumer. On the whole, I sympathise with that general point. However, the fact is that if the pessimists in the industry are correct that the future of the industry depends upon the proposal not going through, then it is in the interests of the consumer of greyhound-racing. If there is no industry to consume, it can hardly be in the interests of the consumer.
Thus, although that looks like a defence of producer interests, there is a case for saying that it is also in the interests of the consumer. I believe that the main reason given to the greyhound-racing industry as to why it should not enjoy equal levy status with horse-racing was that the races were primarily in the evenings when betting shops were not open. But that situation has now changed and the key plank of the argument of those who do not wish to see greyhound-racing have an off-course betting levy similar to that enjoyed by horse-racing has been removed. There is now, it seems to me, a strong case for considering the extension of the levy to greyhound-racing.
I turn now to the likely effect of the changes on staffs employed in betting shops. First, as was pointed out by my honourable friend Mr. Graham Allen, who speaks on these matters for my party in another place, at least one of the three large bookmaking firms has insisted that employees in its betting shops should sign new contracts relating to the extended hours on pain of dismissal or retirement. That seems to be rather harsh behaviour in the circumstances and, as he pointed out in another place, might be a premonition of what could happen under the extension of Sunday trading. Certainly there is a case for saying that the working conditions of those working in betting shops might deteriorate under those circumstances. That is another potential harm to the interests of a particular group of employees.
40
Secondly, as has been pointed out, many of those who work in betting shops are women and they work in small groups of two or three. There must be concerns about their safety, even accepting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, both in terms of their safety within the office itself and also on the journey home. Those concerns were relayed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, to the Home Office by the Association of Chief Police Officers. If ACPO is making such representations to the Home Office, we need some reassurance from the noble Viscount about the response that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary made to ACPO's representations on those points. We cannot just dismiss them as being irrelevant or unworthy of consideration.
Finally, in terms of the potential harm to interests, we have to be concerned about the environment within which betting shops are situated and the effect of the current proposals on that environment. Betting shops are situated in all kinds of places; in urban centres, in large villages, on estates and in suburbs. As any casual observer can see, groups of people, particularly young men, congregate around such offices, and they will do so late into the evening if the proposals are accepted. Alongside that is drinking late into the evening. Those living close to betting shops are not likely to see the noise, the litter and the associated behaviour adding to the quality of their lives. We need to be concerned about that in the context of the current general worry about the level of crime in society.
Overall, therefore, there are three kinds of potential harm that we should weigh in our minds when we think about how to vote if this issue comes to a vote —the harm, or the potential harm, to the industry; the impact on the working conditions of those who work within the shops; and the impact on the environment of the areas in which betting shops are situated.
The Minister will no doubt argue that the proposed changes will extend consumer choice. In that sense there is a great deal to be said for them. We accept that. It is just that that extension of choice has to be balanced against the possibility of harm. One of the points that my honourable friends in another place raised when they were debating this subject in the Fifth Committee on Statutory Instruments earlier this month was the measurable demand from punters for this development. It was clear that many of those on the producer side of the argument—the employees, the betting shops, the small bookmakers, and so forth —definitely did not want the change. But if one is looking to balance those producer interests against consumer interests, what kind of evidence is there on the part of consumers for the deregulation that is the subject of the debate today?
The Betting Office Licensees Association commissioned a poll, conducted by Gallup, which showed that 56 per cent. of punters were in favour of evening opening. However, it was a rather small sample. Without wanting to go into the details, some rather telling points were made in another place about the validity and design of the poll that Gallup had conducted. It had been taken back by those who commissioned it for a certain amount of remodelling.

41
We should like some assurance from the noble Viscount that there is a strong surge of consumer demand for this proposed level of deregulation.
Overall, these are clearly matters which involve deep feelings. We have had a good debate which has brought out most of the issues. It is a case of striking a balance between consumer demand and the potential harms that I have mentioned. It is a matter of judgment for noble Lords. For that reason we on these Benches do not seek to impose a Whip. If there is a vote, it will be by a free vote of my noble friends.
5.5 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Leigh on an excellent and interesting maiden speech. I am sure that both your Lordships and indeed the greyhound industry look forward to his participation in future debates.
I should like to explain to your Lordships why the Government have decided that the changes which are proposed in these regulations are justified. Before I respond, however, I should like to say that I realise that my noble friend Lord Newall, who has spoken against the regulations, reflects the very strong views which have been raised by the greyhound industry and others about the changes in betting office hours. My noble friend has set out very clearly many of the objections which have been raised against evening opening and we took serious account of those views.
The Government's proposals have not, though, been sprung on an unsuspecting industry and public. The possibility of evening opening has been around for quite a long time. Indeed, it was even considered by the Rothschild Royal Commission which reported back in 1978. Times have moved on. In 1978 there were only 62 evening horse-race meetings. By 1992, that had more than doubled to 144.
There are, therefore, many more horse-races which are now being held in the evening. A quarter of all meetings from April through August are held in the evening. As a result, the horse-racing industry, off-course bookmakers and consumers have continued to urge the Government to allow evening opening of betting offices.
Evening race meetings became the subject of renewed attention by the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place in 1991. Two reports—one on the horse-race betting levy and one on the financing of greyhound racing—both recommended in principle that evening opening should be allowed. The Government's view was that all interested parties should be consulted before a final decision was made. They were consulted.
In October 1991, we issued a consultation document setting out the issues both of principle and of practice on which views were invited. We received responses from all the interests who would be affected by it and we made ourselves available for subsequent discussions and representations, including meetings with my noble friend Lord Newall. The final decision by the Home Secretary was based on a full and careful consideration of all the views which had been put forward.
42
I should now like to address some of the main arguments which were advanced during that long consultation process, and to which my noble friend and other noble Lords have referred in this debate. First, why should we allow evening opening at all? The answer is simple. Removing unnecessary regulations encourages competition and it gives all businesses, large and small, the flexibility to meet the changing requirements of their customers, and that means greater consumer choice. Gambling must, of course, be properly regulated, to ensure that it is conducted honestly. But the Government also believe that adequate facilities should be available for those who want to bet when they want to do so for the benefit of racing and the punter alike. Whether bookmakers decide to open in the evenings and, if so, whether their customers make use of their services, is a matter which is best decided by the bookmakers themselves—and not by the Government. It will be their choice.
There are those in the off-course bookmaking industry—and not just the big three—who believe that their businesses and their customers will benefit from evening opening. If they are right—and that is a commercial judgment for each bookmaker to make —evening opening could help to secure jobs and to create new employment opportunities.
The prospect for betting offices of increased turnover from evening opening will offer them new opportunities. There are those who also argue that the change will benefit the big bookmakers disproportionately. Also it will adversely affect the working conditions of their staff, which is something which concerns the noble Lord, Lord Plant, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who quite rightly felt strongly about the anxieties of the betting office staff in that they would be forced to work longer hours against their will or for no extra benefit.
I noted the sharp criticism of the way in which some companies have dealt with their staff. I would wish that all bookmakers treat all employees in a positive and sympathetic manner. It is in the interests of both to maintain good relations. I hope that the industry will follow the Tote's attitude to its staff.
It is a fact of life that businesses have to respond to changing circumstances; betting offices cannot be exempt. Changes in conditions of service are a matter between each company and its staff: they are not a matter for the Government. But any sensible employer wants to retain his experienced staff and will take account of their wishes as far as possible. Satisfactory arrangements will be made in most cases, but if an employer acts unlawfully there are remedies available under the existing employment protection law.
If the employer unilaterally imposes new terms which the employee is unwilling to accept, employees who have completed at least two years' continuous employment may resign and take the employer to an industrial tribunal. Any employee, however short his service, can sue the employer for breach of contract. I believe that it is not the function of parliamentary regulations to attempt to control the structure of the bookmaking industry. The function of the regulation is to regulate the activity of betting.

43
Evening opening will provide additional income for horse-racing. Evening racing has increased because it has proved popular with racegoers. If it increases further, that would be good both for racing and for bookmakers, and also for the public who will be going to the racecourses. The racing industry needs to be competitive to maintain its market and for the industry to prosper. How this new opportunity is developed is a matter for negotiation between both sides, horse-racing and bookmaking. The Government's role is just to remove unnecessary regulations which stifle initiative.
Set against the arguments in favour of evening opening, the Government had in mind the objections to which my noble friend Lord Newall referred. Greyhound racing fears that it will suffer because its customers will prefer to go to the betting office rather than to the dog track. That is a very pessimistic view of the attractions of dog racing and the loyalty of its present clientele. It is not one which is shared by all sections of the dog-racing industry.
Perhaps I may now turn to attendances to which noble Lords referred. Attendances at greyhound racing peaked in the late 1940s and declined throughout the 1950s before betting offices were legalised. The fall in attendances after 1961 simply continued the established pattern. It is really not possible to attribute the decline simply to the legislation for betting offices.
I should declare an interest. I go to evening race meetings at Wembley when I am able to escape from the long hours that your Lordships' House imposes on me.
Noble Lords: Ah!
Viscount Astor: My Lords, an evening greyhound racing offers a night out combining live racing with dinner and tax-free betting. An evening spent in a betting shop—even one operated by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt—is really not a comparable form of entertainment. Greyhound racing has much more to offer: an exciting, varied and enjoyable evening. I will, however, leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, to expound the view that betting is a high, moral occupation.
Greyhound tracks have a range of facilities which betting offices cannot possibly offer. It is clear that some track owners, at least, intend to market those attractions vigorously and reports in the press suggest that attendances have risen recently.
Even so, we did take account of the concerns which were expressed by greyhound racing and that was a significant factor in the Government's decision to confine evening opening to the five months of the summer horse-racing season. That is the period when the greatest demand for evening betting is likely to exist. We believe that this represents a very fair compromise between the claims of all parties. Greyhound racing's future now rests in its own hands. It is up to the sport to develop and to market its attractions. We want it to flourish.
My noble friend Lord Newall is now seeking to substitute regulations which would force betting shops
44
to remain closed after 6.30 p.m. on summer Saturday evenings. My noble friend argues that this would protect greyhound racing from competition from the off-course betting industry on Saturdays, which is greyhound racing's most popular night. Closing betting offices early on Saturdays would, he has argued, protect the industry's revenue from track attendances and Tote betting.
The Government canvassed opinion on this in their consultation document. Of those who expressed an opinion on this question, most favoured a uniform closing time for every night of the week. In particular, the police anticipated enforcement difficulties if betting offices had different closing times on Saturdays. The Government clearly had to accept their advice on that.
My noble friend Lord Lye11 asked me about the Association of Chief Police Officers. I can tell my noble friend that in a letter to the Home Office dated 12th November, that organisation said:
"The general principle of evening opening is acceptable to ACPO and there is no reason to suppose that the level of policing commitment to licensed betting offices would increase significantly as a result, although extended hours could increase the risk of robberies and theft, but to what level is a matter for conjecture".
It is an important factor against closure on Saturdays that Saturday nights are the popular evenings for horse-racing. There are horse-races on most summer Saturday evenings. To close betting shops early on Saturdays would be to deny punters the freedom to bet on occasions when there is popular demand for off-course betting and it could lead to illegal betting. That is why we chose 10 p.m. as the closing time for all nights of the week. The last race is often at 9 p.m. or later and it must make sense that punters can collect their winnings on the same evening and not, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested, wait fretfully until Monday.
I must remind your Lordships that the regulations governing greyhound racing have been relaxed in recent years; for example, the removal of the restrictions on the number of racing days, and allowing prize money to roll over. Proposals for further changes have been accepted in principle; for example, track-to-track betting. The industry has also recently come forward with other proposals which we are considering. And we will have further discussions with the industry about off-course post betting.
The Government have played their part too, as my noble friend Lord Zetland reminded us. Last year my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut betting duty by one quarter of 1 per cent. Following that reduction, the greyhound and bookmaking industries have agreed to a voluntary mechanism to collect and administer the money released in respect of greyhound betting turnover. A new body, the British Greyhound Racing Trust Fund, is expected to raise up to £3 million a year in additional funding for the greyhound industry. As a result, greyhound racing will receive a direct benefit from every additional bet struck on the sport as a result of having evening opening.
I am sure that the Chancellor has also taken note of the regular and close interest taken by my noble

45
friends Lord Peyton and Lord Elton as regards VAT on bloodstock. As both my noble friends know, it is a matter for the Chancellor and I certainly cannot say anything more to your Lordships this afternoon.
However, that is not the only benefit accruing to the greyhound industry. The introduction of a Bookmakers' Evening Greyhound Service similar to the afternoon service, could provide additional fee income for the sport which will also benefit from the increased public exposure of evening race meetings. Of course, the televising of evening race meetings is a matter for negotiation between the greyhound industry and the bookmakers.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who brings to your Lordships' House a wealth of experience of all sporting matters. He discussed both a levy and track ownership. Gambling legislation does not regulate the issues of track ownership, but the usual rules of competition policy apply.
Let me turn to the question of a statutory levy. The Government's position is quite clear. A levy can only be justified if, as is the case with horse-racing, that is the joint wish of racing and bookmaking. There is no such voluntary joint agreement between dog-racing and the bookmakers. I am afraid, therefore, that I have to tell my noble friend that I do not think that it would be right for the Government to impose one, and we do not intend to do so.
I hope that I have been able to allay some of the fears which your Lordships have expressed. I believe that your Lordships welcome the changes to extend opening hours, but that issue is separate from that raised by my noble friend Lord Elton in relation to VAT.
No sport or business can afford to stand still, and evening opening will enable bookmakers to improve the service which they offer to their customers, and that means greater consumer choice, something which is dear to the Government's heart. To close on Saturday evenings would be to deny punters a popular betting opportunity to the detriment of the whole industry.
In the light of the explanation of the Government's reasons for this change, I hope that my noble friend will see that this is not an attack either intentionally or unintentionally on the industry that he represents. As I have said, we want greyhound racing to flourish—we believe that it can—and we are looking carefully at the proposals suggested by the industry. I hope therefore that my noble friend will now be able to support these regulations, and withdraw his Motion.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Newel: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate this afternoon and I am most grateful to all noble Lords, from all sides of the House, who have taken part. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Leigh for his witty and amusing maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear him on many occasions in the future.
I am sure that your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have no intention of mentioning all those who have spoken, but I should like to make one or two
46
small points to put the matter straight. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what we would spend the levy on if we had one. I am sure that he realises that no politician answers hypothetical questions and we do not have a levy. However, I assure him that there is a list in the office and that there are many things that we could spend it on, such as integrity services, security, dope-testing, or the Retired Greyhound Trust. There are lots of things on the carpet, but we do not talk about it because we do not have a levy.
Many noble Lords have referred to the parlous state of horse-racing, to which I shall return in a moment. As my noble friend Lord Lyell said, greyhound racing does not have an even chance, but I think that I have explained that carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is one of the House's best-known bookmakers. He is always very kind to me and I am grateful to him. Obviously, he will know that a great many betting shops are now located alongside pubs, so there is a danger. I am not trying to close down betting shops—far be it from me to try to do that—I am simply trying to prevent too much betting, particularly on a Saturday evening. I am afraid that his comment that £4 million comes to greyhound racing from BAGS is rather sad because greyhound racing receives only about £350,000—all the rest goes to the BAGS tracks which are mostly owned by the bookmakers themselves. That is the answer to that point, but we can talk about it again.
The noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, made a brief contribution and apparently does not know the difference between a cinema and a betting shop. I can assure him that betting shops have far more screens than cinemas.
Finally, I come to my noble friend the Minister who sounded extremely reasonable and gave all the usual government answers. He probably knows that it takes two years to get an answer from the industrial tribunal, so anybody who is sacked for not signing on may have to wait two years. That is not a satisfactory situation. As most of those concerned are non-union members, that does not help them very much.
My noble friend also mentioned the 0.25 per cent. reduction in betting duty—a marvellous idea—but it was introduced in April and greyhound racing has not yet seen one penny. Although some agreements have been made with the bookmakers, at the moment nothing has come through. On the point about the levy needing an agreement between the bookmakers and the greyhound industry, I can assure him—I realise that he knows this—that when the original levy was introduced the bookmakers were under great threat of being wiped out altogether and of there being a Tote monopoly. That is why they gave in to a levy. There is no such threat now, so why should they give up all those millions of pounds just to help greyhound racing which they can run in their own way, if they want to, just by using their own tracks. That is not a very satisfactory method.
I said that I would return to the point about racing being in a parlous state. All racing—horse-racing and greyhound racing—is in a parlous state. I am a great fan of horse-racing as many of your Lordships know. Indeed, for many years I was an amateur steeplechase

47
jockey and enjoyed it very much. As I said, I am keen on all racing and it is not just horse-racing that is in a parlous state. The horse-racing industry is sad that it is getting only £47 million. Now it will get another £5 million, making £52 million. Greyhound racing gets absolutely nothing. Therefore, if I can use that ghastly expression, it is not a "level playing field"; but it is an important point. Greyhound racing does not have the same weight. It is therefore important to try to save greyhound racing from going under by not opening betting shops in the evenings.
It is government legislation that has meant that there is no levy and it is government legislation that confines greyhound racing in all sorts of ways. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will support me. I hope that I shall not impinge on our next debate, but I should like to test the water and to take the mood of the House.
5.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Airedale, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Moran, L.

Bridges, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Newall, L. [Teller.]

Dainton, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Norrie, L.

Elton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Geraint, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rennell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Hampton, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hayter, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Judd, L.

Spens, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swansea, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Terrington, L.

Leigh, L.

Teviot, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lyell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Underhill, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Annaly, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Astor, V.

Craigavon, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Croham, L.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Blackstone, B.

Davidson, V.

Borthwick, L.

De La Warr, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Devonshire, D.

Butterworth, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Cadman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Erne, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fairhaven, L.

48

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Finsberg, L.

Palmer, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Peston, L.

Gowrie, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Halsbury, E.

Plumb, L.

Harrowby, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Hayhoe, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hesketh, L.

Reay, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Renton, L.

Hothfield, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Howe, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Howell, L.

Romney, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ingrow, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Selborne, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Shannon, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stedman, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Layton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Lucas, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Manton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Weinstock, L.

Mersey, V.

Westbury, L.

Middleton, L.

Wise, L.

Milverton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Wynford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Zetland, M.

Mulley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Water Metering
5.35 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence there is that the introduction of domestic water metering will benefit the domestic consumer.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to those colleagues who have put down their names to take part in a debate upon what I regard as an important consumer matter. On 21st October last year, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, initiated a debate on the water industry. In the course of my remarks then, I declared an interest as a holder of shares in Wessex Water. I went on to say that I understood that it had recently acquired a large manufacturer of meter. Subsequently I received a letter from Wessex Water noting my comments, and saying:
"To our knowledge no metering company has been purchased by any water company—and certainly not Wessex Water—this would appear to be nothing but a common rumour that has been circulating for over a year."
I am therefore grateful to your Lordships' House for giving me the opportunity to put straight the record with regard to my remarks on that point.
During that debate there was talk about the role of the regulators of the various privatised industries. I was interested to see an article in the Observer last

49
Sunday which reported that the new Director General of Fair Trading had said that he was unenthusiastic about the prospect of further specialist regulators, and that he turned a deaf ear to them and so forth. Also in the text I saw that Sir James McKinnon, "the controversial gas regulator", was often at loggerheads with BT. That explains to me why I have heard references to that gentleman from time to time as the,
"skinhead of the regulatory profession."
Leaving that aside, the matter is important. In the other place, when my colleagues have asked Questions of the Government about the introduction and controlling of metering, Ministers have leg-glanced them to the boundary with all the grace of Ranjitsinhji, giving the regulator a big boost. My reference to Ranjitsinhji is apt today with the news that we are receiving from Bombay.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, what is the news?
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, 108 for three. The Minister referred to Ofwat considering ways to alleviate the hardship and difficulties experienced by a small proportion of customers who are metered. He went on to say:
"The Director General of Water Services has a general obligation to look after customers and consumer interests." —[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/93; col. 1034.]
He was content with the way he was doing his job.
I am sure that the Government will be pleased to hear that further regulators will not be appointed, although they might have had them up their sleeve as one way of denting the rising unemployment figures. I have often thought that there should be a collective noun for regulators. It was suggested to me that "a pride of regulators" might be suitable. I warmed to that suggestion initially, because I thought that a conceit element was involved, but then I realised that it was associated with lions. The best suggestion that I have heard so far is the use of an "arrogance" as a collective noun, because to some extent that gives the idea of the olympic heights from which judgments are dispensed; the intellectual quality, and so forth.
The latest Ofwat paper entitled Paying for Growth, which appeared in February this year, refers throughout to domestic metering as taken for granted. I am sure that if challenged, the Government would call in aid the surveys which are being conducted. There is the general assumption that the argument about metering is over and done with.
Perhaps I may weary your Lordships by quoting from the 1991 Ofwat Annual Report. The Director General launched a consultation exercise. In response five of the customer service committees supported metering as the most appropriate long-term method. The remaining customer service committees were opposed to universal metering, four expressing a preference for a system of banded charges. The report goes on to deal with the two surveys which Ofwat undertook. The first was a questionnaire which was sent out with the water bills in March 1991. The second was conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
I shall deal with the results of those surveys in a moment. However, the general assumption about metering appears to be reinforced. Today I was
50
contacted by people on behalf of Anglian Water who wished to give me some background literature on the question. In view of the previous debate, one might say that that was nobbling the horse in the stable. However, in the course of their remarks, they stated:
"Ofwat has acknowledged that metering is generally regarded as the fairest method of charging".
It has "acknowledged that metering is generally regarded". That is the assumption that we are up against and I believe that it is not correctly founded. Perhaps we may look at that issue closer.
The water metering survey was included with the water bills sent out to 18 million households, and it took the form of a questionnaire. The response, which I mentioned to your Lordships in a previous debate, was only 1.6 per cent., or 290,000 out of the 18 million. The National Consumer Council claimed that those who replied were below-average water consumers who could expect to pay less rather than more once meters were installed. Virginia Matthews observed that large-scale surveys such as that administered by Ofwat are a self-selecting sample and are not representative of the population as a whole. The magazine Consumer Voice stated:
"In none of the surveys were the respondents told that the average leakage is about 25 per cent. of the water supplied by the water companies".
That was reported in the Financial Times on 7th July 1992 under the heading "Polls on Water Metering Mislead".
The questionnaire which was circulated with the bills gave the customers three choices. They were asked to comment on flat-rate charges, metering, banding (or "stepped-charges"). As regards the flat-rate charge, the text states:
"The company charges each household the same amount irrespective of its size. If your water usage is very small, it may be worthwhile opting for a meter".
The leaflet then deals with metering. In respect of banding, it states, under the reasons for metering:
"you would still have an option to meter (as now) which would be worthwhile if your use was significantly less than for your type of property".
The questionnaire asks five questions. A small user is pointed towards the answer which gives one an advantage. Therefore, I do not believe that the results of the questionnaire, pitiful though they were in terms of response, can be used as any form of criterion because people were pushed towards the answer which probably the regulator wanted.
After the debate in this House, the regulator, Ian Byatt, wrote to me stating:
"I fully share your views over our questionnaire to customers and its statistical shortcomings".
The regulator's biography shows that he is a distinguished economist and statistician. One is bound to ask why, if he was aware of the statistical shortcomings, was the questionnaire sent out in the first place? His letter continues:
"Far more weight has been given by my office to the findings of the survey conducted for us by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys".
The OPCS Omnibus Survey shows that the results need to be treated with caution. Many respondents had not thought through the issue before the interview and they modified their views as the interview progressed. In dealing with the issue, I am obliged to

51
Dr. George Gaskell, senior lecturer at the London School of Economics. His name was quoted in an article which appeared in the Independent on 26th October 1991. He supervised the survey on metering in the Sutton area. Commenting on the OPCS Omnibus Survey response about the need to treat the results with caution, Dr. Gaskell stated:
"OPCS estimates that at the beginning of the interviews 54 per cent. favour metering and after about seven questions (perhaps two to three minutes) the percentage drops to 46 per cent.".
Dr. Gaskell went on to say:
"Initially, most people are ill-informed about water charging and until there is a public debate which covers equity and costs to the consumer, etc., I do not think we can reach any conclusion about the likely distribution of preferences in an 'informed public'".
Paragraph 4.1 of the OPCS Omnibus Survey Paying for Water states:
" … it is to be expected that respondents coming unprepared to the subject of water charges and indeed some of the others might modify or alter their views during the course of an interview".
The first survey was conducted by OPCS in January 1991. There are 13 pages of questions before those on metering and they relate to smoking and home ownership. People are selected and then taken through a screed of questions. Buried deep in the heart of the questionnaire—that is, from question 53 onwards—are questions about metering. One wonders about people's stamina and endurance in going through such a screed. Most of the questions pertaining to the above-mentioned issues are straightforward and do not require much thought. Furthermore, it is not necessary to have read about those subjects because the answers are based on personal experience. However, that is not the case in respect of water metering.
The second OPCS survey was distributed in February 1991. On that occasion there were only eight pages of questions before those relating to water metering; that is a mere 36 questions. They were general, personal questions requiring little thought.
In response to the results of the survey and its consequences, the publication Using Water Wisely states:
"The introduction of metering will tend to benefit small households, especially people living in a house or flat with a relatively high rateable value. It is likely to increase the cost of water for people, especially large households, living in a house or flat with a relatively low rateable value. The effect on large households will be magnified if a rising block tariff is used".
The publication continues:
"An important finding from the survey is that customers often have a poor understanding of the most effective ways in which they can reduce their use of water and therefore save costs. This highlights the need for more public education about using water wisely".
An article published in the Daily Telegraph on 12th September 1992 headed, "Water Meters Bring Tension at Bath Time" stated:
"Households with five members or more experience the greatest financial difficulty, often because of unemployment".
If universal metering were adopted, substantial resources would be required. It has been estimated that the metering of 95 per cent. of properties with external meters would involve sums in the region of
52
from £3 billion to £5 billion. It is doubtful whether those kinds of sums can be spared at the moment in view of all the other calls on the national purse and Exchequer.
The question of hardship is not difficult to identify. There have been trial metering areas. By far the largest was the Isle of Wight. It must be said that pleasant though it is, the Isle of Wight is hardly typical of the communities which we have in this country. The number of people there on income support is well below average, and the average income of people is well above average. There are numerous well-documented cases of the problems caused to large families by water metering. Those have been well publicised by the National Consumer Council. It says:
"thousands of families will face severe hardship once metering is introduced, and fears that poorer households will sacrifice bathing or clean clothes in order to preserve their spending power. Taken to its logical conclusion, the argument is that dirt and disease among the poor would return to levels seldom seen since the last century".
Small businessmen have been badly hit by metering, and there are stories of some of them being pushed almost to the point of bankruptcy by the unexpectedly high bills.
In the Financial Times on 31st July the Secretary of State for the Environment was reported as being anxious about the impact of metering on poor families, and he stated that that matter clearly needed attention. The Opposition spokesman on environmental protection said that under pilot schemes in areas such as Blackburn:
"metering has nearly doubled water bills for large families with children".
Therefore, basically, there is a problem in that the people who will be adversely affected by metering are those in society who are least able to defend themselves in terms of spending power.
The water regulator, Mr. Byatt, wants customer-friendly schemes to be put in place by companies by early 1993. He says:
"Metering customers is not about payments. It is about giving people choice and saving water where it is needed".
I have spoken about the fact that trial areas were not representative. There are other areas in the country where that can equally be said to be true. I shall not weary the House with those details, but I am sure that we can all imagine that the same objections which there were to the old rating system in many cases will apply in reverse. Households of only one or two people will benefit, but large families will not. Frankly, if the director general is making such a big deal about water meters and how wonderful they are, we should ask why more people are not asking for meters. In the Guidelines on Optional Metering 1990–91 he states:
"25,000 meters were installed at the customer's request — less than 0.3 per cent. of all existing unmeasured households".
As regards installation, I am afraid that this may give rise to fruitful territories for cowboy plumbers— if one can imagine such a thing. I have some anecdotal evidence for the House. A young friend of mine who lives in London told me that he had heard from Thames Water about customer meter reading and he had been asked to read the meter himself. A form was issued on which to do so. My friend tells me that those meters are under a heavy cover out in the

53
road and it is very difficult to lift the cover without a special tool. I 'phoned my friend last night and he told me that two of his friends and himself went out and had great difficulty trying to lift off the cover. That raises the question of whether or not there is an interest in this matter for the Health and Safety Executive because it may be that Thames Water will have to issue surgical trusses for people trying to read meters out in the road. Indeed, in future we may see reference in medical literature to Byatt's Syndrome or Regulator's Rupture.
We need a proper public debate about this matter. In the Ofwat publication Guidelines on Optional Metering it states:
"Some companies who allow customers to install their own meters insist on the meter being provided by the company … while some confine the charge to the meter only".
It sounds rather like some building societies which insist on customers insuring with a particular insurance company. We are all familiar with that.
On timescales, it states:
"It would appear from a review of the companies' literature that it is the practice of some companies to request payment in advance while allowing themselves up to 6 months to carry out the work (ie, survey within three months, followed by installation within three months). Such undue delay cannot be considered acceptable commercial practice, even less so where payment has been made in advance".
I do not wish to weary your Lordships longer, but I believe that there has been inadequate public debate and information about this matter. The last point that I wish to put to the House and the Minister is this —and it seems to be quite interesting. In the National Rivers Authority's response to the consultation paper Using Water Wisely, after the introduction, it deals with domestic metering. Paragraph 2.2 states:
"Where it can be shown that proper attention has not been given to the introduction of selective metering, the NRA will not grant licences for new sources".
That seems to me to be the mailed fist in a not particularly velvet glove because pressure is being placed on the water companies by the NRA—that is, not granting licences for new sources—to introduce selective metering. When I was a boy, there was a very crude word that one could apply to that: it was "blackmail". Here we have a further variable introduced by the NRA, and it is the first time that I have seen any reference to it. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to consider very seriously whether we are going down the road which could lead to hardship for large numbers of our citizens without giving the matter proper thought and consultation.
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for raising this subject. It may be premature because in a few months we shall have the results of the three year national water metering trials. Nevertheless, metering domestic water supplies raises issues which we can explore in principle. Some data is already available, although it is incomplete.
The price of water is an emotive subject. Many see the water which comes out of our taps as an act of God for which anything other than a nominal charge is iniquitous and unprecedented. Others point to the fact that at present this country has enough water to
54
meet all reasonable needs. That may be theoretically correct. However, it overlooks the current situation on regional bases where equating demand with supply is far from simple.
Consumer demand, which is rising steadily by between 1 per cent. and 1.5 per cent, per annum, can be high where water sources are least available and low where they are most plentiful. One area of high and rising demand which is stretching existing resources extends through much of the south and east of England. Furthermore, across those regions the four years up to last autumn saw the lowest rainfall in 200 years. That included unusually low winter rainfalls, which is the season in which water resources are naturally replenished.
Some water is already transferred from one region to another but only where distance and logistics make it cost effective. To embark on a national water grid as envisaged by the British Waterways Board is quite a different matter. For example, re-engineering the canal system to distribute Cumbrian water to the South East and pumping it over three or four watersheds en route requires an investment of such magnitude that it is unlikely to stand up to cost benefit analysis compared with other options.
Such comparative analysis is vital to the interests of the consumer. Existing resources will not last indefinitely and there is already an urgent need in some areas for additional sources of public water; for example, Thames Water is planning a new 33,000 million gallon reservoir in Oxfordshire. London, incidentally, uses 33,000 million gallons of water approximately every 60 days. With the land take for such a scheme measuring five-and-a-half square miles, the planning, environmental and engineering implications are considerable and if the project goes ahead the cost will run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Given such costs, it is obviously crucial that we make the most economic use of existing water supplies. Efficient practice and the elimination of waste among both producers and users must be an integral part of the demand and supply equation. As regards the water companies, the infrastructure required to supply the consumer has needed, and is now receiving, considerable investment in terms of maintenance and renewal.
In 1989, when the water companies were privatised, £8 billion was budgeted over the following decade for the renewal of water distribution networks, with the reduction of leakage as one of its principal objectives. That programme is on target, although if water had not been transferred to the private sector one wonders whether it would have survived current Treasury reviews intact. The investment specifically targeted at leakage in the mains grid will, however, reach a point where it is no longer cost-effective to pursue. At that point attention inevitably turns to the water leakage that occurs in the service piping which connects the consumer to the mains and which is owned not by the water companies but by the consumers themselves. That piping is not at present the focus of much leakage control but is estimated to be the source of perhaps one-third of all leaks.

55
That brings me to the need for better practice from the consumer. The water companies consider it part of their duty to make sure that water is not wasted but is used wisely. In fact they have a vested financial interest, which is shared by their consumers, in avoiding or delaying the huge capital costs that attach to new reservoirs or long distance transfers. But how does one promote better practice and discourage waste among domestic water consumers? Without some kind of price mechanism it is difficult. Pleas and exhortations for greater responsibility are of limited effect, human nature being what it is.
Water charges for 99 per cent. of domestic consumers are presently based on the rateable value of their property and in most cases the charge does not distinguish between the over-indulgent and the prudent. Large or excessive usage, bad practice and waste are neither identified at source nor paid at source but are averaged out across consumers in a particular region.
Water charges based on rateable values cannot, by law, be used after the end of the century. In the pursuit of better practice therefore, how appropriate is it to introduce demand-related price mechanisms employing water meters?
There are, I believe, three important issues. The most critical is the extent to which metered charges for water will affect levels of demand and patterns of consumption over the longer term. Initial results from the national trials suggest that metering may reduce domestic demand by between 5 per cent. and 15 per cent. A September 1992 interim report by the Water Metering Trials Group adds the following:
"if there is a two part tariff, which charges more for water at certain times or for higher consumption, then this tends to have a greater effect on demand. Many people suggested before the trials that any impact on demand would not last, but as yet there is no evidence of it tailing off.
The impact on peak consumption is more noticeable. Consumption in summer, when demands would normally be high, fell by as much as 30 per cent. in some of the trial areas. This could be significant, as the cost to the water industry (and its customers) of coping with peaks is considerable".
What is also relevant is that metering domestic supplies should have an impact on the significant leakage that occurs in consumer-owned piping. An externally fitted water meter, close to where a domestic service pipe leaves the mains, will give the consumer an immediate vested interest in making good any serious leaks thereafter; and it is in the interests of all customers in that water region that overall leakage is reduced to a minimum. In some cases, the water pressure may be such that an unknown leak is the equivalent to three times that property's actual domestic usage. I take the noble Lord's point about the weight of the inspection hatches that may have been placed over external water meters that are already in place. Presumably water companies will seek to improve that situation.
If metering tempers demand and if it reduces leakage and waste, the benefits to the consumer will go further than a mere reduction in his or her quarterly bill. The pressure faced by some water companies to
56
invest in vast capital projects may be slowed or actually reduced; and for every project deferred there is a saving to the customer.
The second issue raised by metering domestic consumers is the cost to the industry of installation and administration. On the one hand, we can be sure that if we already had meters today we would not be getting rid of them, but, on the other, introducing them on a substantial scale .is not a welcome prospect for the water companies. I believe I am making a rather different point to the noble Lord.
It is estimated that for most domestic properties the installation cost will be between £160 and £200, and that some £3 billion or £4 billion would be needed if all domestic consumers in England and Wales were to be metered. The administration would attract running costs though perhaps one day these could be streamlined with remote reading technology. The sums involved in the widespread introduction of meters are probably irrelevant. Few expect it to be either practical or necessary. What is more likely is that, initially, only certain types of user might be metered. On the domestic front, research may show that those properties with higher rateable values, or those over a certain size, or those with grounds exceeding certain dimensions, may comprise a significant proportion of the higher users.
Thus, meters would probably only be installed on a selective basis. However, it is also likely that the pattern of their introduction would reflect regional circumstances with certain water companies employing meters as a strategic response to specific pressures of demand over supply in their own areas. Some regions already have sufficient infrastructure and resources to cope with forecast increases in demand and will therefore be less enthusiastic about incurring the expense of installing meters.
A marginal benefit may not be sufficient justification for metering. Where the benefit to producer and consumer would become significant is when the consequence of metering existing consumption either delays the need for costly new capital projects or reduces the need for imposing restrictions on certain practices, such as the use of hose pipes and car washes in dry summers.
Metering, therefore, may only be needed among certain types of property in certain areas as part of a balancing act between demand, supply and investment. One estimate from Thames Water, for instance, is that should metering be phased in at least 70 per cent. of its domestic consumers would not be affected.
If metering is so selective, confined to perhaps 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of some areas, two questions remain. On what basis will the remainder be charged, given that it cannot be on the rateable value? Will some companies opt for a single standard charge while others choose banded charges based on the size of a building or on the number of its occupants or the size of the garden? Would some charges be based on the council tax bands, which I believe Scotland is opting for? The Government are rumoured to oppose this latter option and it would be interesting if my noble friend the Minister would explain why. The second question is that if metering is proved to encourage

57
better practice and less waste but is only introduced selectively, how can one reform the habits of those who remain unmetered?
The final fundamental issue raised by the introduction of domestic water meters is that charges based accurately on consumption will hit certain people disproportionately hard, such as large families on low incomes who have been living in houses with low rateable values. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, highlighted that concern. The water companies have addressed that point and are, I believe, in discussion with the Government on what provision could be made in cases of genuine hardship or unacceptable increases in charges. Also hit might be those who have been used to watering their gardens liberally every day of the summer and washing both their cars every Saturday throughout the year. Below average users, however, such as the owners of small properties, the elderly and two people families will be beneficiaries.
In the national trials, incomplete results to date suggest that the majority have paid roughly the same or less than before the trials started, with two out of five paying 20 per cent. less and only one in five paying a bill that was over £20 greater than their former bills. Of great importance to the noble Lord's Question, however, is that the majority of customers in the trial areas now accept metering as being the best method of charging. An Ofwat survey recorded 72 per cent. of customers in trial areas being in favour compared with 50 per cent. in unmetered but similar trial areas. I know the noble Lord doubted that survey on the grounds of statistical science. He also doubted whether the Isle of Wight was a representative region. The Isle of Wight was just one of 12 areas chosen for the trials.
If domestic water meters improve consumer practices and reduce wastage, if their benefits outweigh their costs and if they are seen to be fair, their introduction must be of benefit to the consumer, the industry and the environment. It is not claimed that domestic metering will solve single-handedly all the problems of equating demand with supply. It might, however, temper unnecessary pressures on the domestic front. Should such pressures remain unrestrained the need for greater and more rapid investment elsewhere will simply accelerate, attracting substantial costs which will eventually have to be borne by both producers and consumers alike.
In conclusion, I believe that we can trust the water companies and Ofwat to come up with the right answer as the industry is reluctant to take on the installation and running costs of domestic water meters unless a clear benefit will result.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps he could clarify a point. I have learnt a great deal from his extremely well-informed speech. However, he mentioned wastage beyond the point where the water supply goes to the domestic consumer, but I did not hear him say what proportion of water is lost in the mains before it reaches the domestic consumer, but I do not have the figures with me but I understand that in some cases the loss is as high as 25 per cent. Can the noble Earl say how much of that loss occurs in the mains pipes and how much
58
is lost by the domestic user after the water leaves the mains? Can he also say what would be the cost of reducing that wastage by the water companies prior to the point at which the water reaches the consumer and how that compares with the cost of introducing widespread metering for domestic users?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall tell the noble Lord, Lord Rea, what I can, but I should point out that I am a disinterested observer and I do not speak on behalf of the water companies and do not have a full brief. I believe that everyone who has studied the water industry knows that leakage from the mains grid has been substantial and was growing until 1989 owing to a shortage of investment. In 1989, when privatisation occurred, a substantial investment programme was put in place and, despite the recession, that investment programme remains on target. The water companies are confident that in time they will reach a point where they have tracked down and corrected all leaks that are economic to repair. Thereafter, if they continued to pursue small leaks with expensive machinery and expensive man hours they will not do the consumer any favours because bills would rise without any benefit.
As water companies reach that stage of solving the problem of major grid leaks, the leaks which occur in service pipes owned by consumers—which are currently estimated to account for one-third of all leaks—will grow as a proportion. I stress that I am not an interested party and my noble friend the Minister may have more information.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, for putting down this Question. It raises a number of issues of considerable importance, which I believe will come closer to the centre of the political arena in the next few years. This is a valuable opportunity for us to increase our understanding of some of the problems that will arise. I too learned a great deal from the speech which we have just heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.
I should make it plain at the outset that I have no personal interest in this Question except as a small shareholder in one of the regional water plcs and as a domestic metered consumer.
The origins of the current charging system go back a long way, to the great improvements in the public water supply which occurred in the last century associated with the large programmes of municipal improvements which were then undertaken. It is my understanding that it was decided then as a matter of policy not to meter private consumers on public health grounds. It was argued that if the poorest families had to pay for water consumption on a metered basis they might either decline to be connected to the safe public water supply or would use water very sparingly. In either case the public health would suffer. That was a time of explosive population growth in our big industrial cities and of an alarming increase in water-borne diseases. Therefore access to clean water at minimal cost to the poorest was a very desirable

59
social objective, as it is in the developing world today. Hence the adoption at that time of a system of charging for water which we have today, still based largely on the concept of the net annual value of the property.
It is interesting that, in contrast, other industrial countries, arriving at a decision some years after we did, generally adopted a quite different system of paying for water based on a metered supply. In the course of the past 40 years I have lived in seven different capital cities around the world. The only country which did not adopt a metered supply was Russia where water charges were set so artificially low that water usage has become profligate and very wasteful. Washing everything under a running tap is now the rule in Russian society. The consumption of water per head in Moscow is, I believe, the highest in the world. Financing the use of water on that scale is one of the many severe problems facing the public authorities in that country. Elsewhere metered supply is the norm and does not seem to produce any particular social or political problems. From an international viewpoint it is our situation which is unusual and our practice appears to be based on historical experience rather than on current needs.
It is worth examining those current needs briefly. Water consumption has been increasing very rapidly in this country as a result of the rise in the standard of living, the number of washing machines now to be found in our homes and improved hygiene. Also, as has been said, much water is wasted because of leakages in the mains. Therefore it is inevitable that the water undertakings have to undertake major investments in order to meet the higher standards which are now set for them by the EC directives. Recent droughts have brought home to us the small margin between normal supply and consumption and the desirability of increasing that margin in many parts of the country. There is a great deal of work to do, involving substantial capital investment by the water companies. That is the core of the matter.
How are we to cope with those needs? The cost of meeting the investment targets can be decreased substantially if we can reduce the quantity of water which is wasted. As was made plain by the noble Earl, part of the problem is already being tackled by the water companies in their extensive programmes of mains renewal, but the consumer can help and reduce his bill by using less water. The best way of doing that is by moving to a generally meter-based system. We are all much more likely to be conscious of the need to stop waste if we pay for what we actually use in the same way as we pay for other utilities. There is no logic in paying for water on the basis of the artificial tax base which is now employed. I believe that the Government were right to include in the Water Act a provision which phases out that system by the end of the present decade. It would be possible to use the new council tax assessment in its place as a basis for payment for water but I would be strongly opposed to that. I too believe that payment should be related directly to consumption as the only sensible long-term solution.
60
We must not overlook the social consequences, which were rightly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. What will be the effect on the poorest members of society with large families? Those who are users of large amounts of water will undoubtedly need some practical assistance. There are two possible ways of doing that. One way would be through the social security system. While that would perhaps be feasible, I suspect that it would be extremely expensive to devise a scheme which delivered help where it was really needed without a great deal of individual calculation of personal needs and the high administrative costs that would be caused. But perhaps this is something that might be looked into before we get into the debate that is certainly going to break over our heads nationally before very long.
Another possibility might be to relieve certain categories of citizen, such as those on income support, or pensioners over a certain age, from payment of the standing charge when metered supply is delivered. Relief from this charge for the least well off would of course mean an extra burden on the water companies, and that could perhaps be met by adjustment of the K factor to take account of the additional expense. That solution might be more acceptable to the Government than a straightforward compensating payment by the Exchequer.
I should perhaps comment on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, about the difficulty of reading water meters. I had a water meter installed at my house 10 years ago. I lift the grid without any difficulty at all. I am not suffering from Byatt's Syndrome, and I do not see why others should. If these meters are installed in a new system rather than those of 100 years ago, I do not think there need be undue difficulty about that, although of course the cost of installation remains a problem.
I have no idea how the Government intend to reply to this question. But my own suggestion is that the domestic consumer needs a reliable supply of water of high quality and reasonable cost, and that a metered supply will form an essential element in making that possible.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I too join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters. I wish to start by raising moral questions about a charge on water, which is one of God's greatest gifts to us. It is essential to mankind and womankind, as is the air we breath. In view of the entrepreneurial pleas—ideological and theological—that we have heard in this Chamber already, some of your Lordships no doubt still regret that it has not been found possible to bottle the air we breath so that it can be charged for as well.
These are important questions. I thought so when I was Minister of State in the Department of the Environment dealing with water, a subject to which I shall return in a moment. I had urged upon me the need to go for water meters, and I turned it down. I regret that before I became a Minister the Isle of Wight experiment had started. I could not stop it, but I certainly prevented any water authorities from

61
extending it. I did it for the good reason that water is supplied by nature, by the Almighty if we are Christians, and therefore it should be freely available to the people of this country.
We all know that it has to be collected, purified, and transported to our doorsteps, and that has to be paid for, but the amount of water that comes through the taps should not be artificially restricted by some payment system such as has been suggested. Water itself should be freely available to the people of this country. That is why I take a fundamental objection, for example, to the views of Mr. Ian Byatt, the director of water regulation, in a paper recently published for Ofwat. He said:
"Water companies should look at compulsory metering for households as one way to meet the growing demand."
I fundamentally object to that. I want the growing demand to be met. There is no reason in this country why the growing demand for water should not be met. When we are dealing with additional factors, such as people using hoses for cars or gardens, or washing various items, it is reasonable to charge additionally in those cases, but as regards the domestic water consumer, he has a right to water.
In 1976, when I was given some responsibility for the drought at that time, I provided the water for the nation. That is something that apparently this Administration is unable to achieve. I reached the conclusion then that there is no shortage of water in this country at all. None at all. There is plenty of water in the North and plenty in the West, and a great shortage in the South and in the East. The question to be considered therefore is the transporting of water from the North to the South and from the West to the East, about which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, was talking.
I therefore devised a plan called the national grid by which this would be brought about. I am sorry to say that from the moment I left office after the unfortunate events of 1979 that plan never saw the light of day again. It was soon murdered by incoming charlatans telling us that they were trying to solve the problem of the shortage of water, but they were doing no such thing. Under my plan, although we would use canals where it might be appropriate, the main purpose of a national grid, unlike electricity and gas, was to use the river system. If your Lordships will take time to look geographically at maps you will see that the rivers run conveniently for this purpose. For example, the Severn, a marvellous river, coming from mid North Wales down to the Bristol Channel—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it rises on Plynlymon.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am told that the Severn rises on Plynlymon. Obviously my noble friend has greater knowledge on the precise location than I have. But the point I want to make —and I started to do this when the drought was on—is that we should get water out of the great reservoirs (which incidentally had been supplied by the ratepayers of Birmingham, and great municipal socialists like Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who is now rejected of course in government circles) and put it in the River Severn, and
62
then take it out where we want to take it out. Of course it is too simple a solution for many involved minds. We could then in fact pump it into the Thames. My noble friend Lord Williams will no doubt tell me exactly where the Thames rises, although I think there are different views about that. Water could be easily pumped from the Severn into the Thames, where it then flows eastwards and can be taken out for the benefit of Kent or the benefit of Norfolk, and so on.
The noble Baroness who is to answer this debate will be familiar with the flow of the Tame and the Trent. The Trent flows from West to East, and therefore it would again be possible to put water into the Trent and take it out where we want to take it out towards the east coast. These schemes are feasible, and it is my great regret that they have never been carried out.
What happened instead was that all the new vested interests known as regional water authorities persuaded Ministers that they would all have a regional grid. I then said, "If you are going to do this by means of regional grids, it could conceivably work if each region is connected to the next region" so that water could go round in that way. To its credit I think that the Northumberland water authority did that, and was connected to the Yorkshire water authority. I am not sufficiently up to date to know exactly how that scheme is going, but it is possible to have such a system. Some authorities indicated that they would do that. However, the present Government decided to do away with national planning for water by closing down the national planning department. They allowed almost every region to be autonomous. The idea of a national strategy for our water affairs went out of the window.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, concede that there could be social consequences from water metering, as does Ofwat. However, the noble Earl stated that the water industry and Ofwat are now talking to the Government on how to deal with the undoubted problem of large families in poor circumstances who are unable to pay.
I make this point on hygiene: that large families in poor circumstances are the very people for whom we wish to provide more water. I should have thought that the provision of water is essential when considering the morality of providing basic services to people in this country. Water meters for such families impose a tax. Neither Ofwat nor anyone else who recognises the problem has ventured to state how the industry should deal with the problem. Those bodies do not say, "We want to put water metering in but we recognise that there will be great social consequences as a result and therefore we as a great industry, a statutory body, will produce a scheme to meet that situation". No, my Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, hinted, they say, "This is one more piece of service legislation which we wish the Government to adopt". If I have not carried the Government with me on anything else, I hope that they will agree that the cost of helping the poor and large families to use as much water as they need should not be imposed on the social services system of this country.

63
Let us consider Ofwat's hardship survey. It states that 8 per cent. of the population would find it difficult to pay a water bill—that is, 535,000 households. We are not referring to a small problem; that is a considerable number of people. It is a large problem.
A large number of people in this country with medical problems need to use a considerable amount of water. In providing water meters, the bureaucracy must meet the needs of those urgent medical cases which impose difficulties on the families concerned.
At one stage the reason given for water metering was that the rateable value system was ending. I understand that argument. But the scheme which was to take the place of the rateable value system has now been replaced. We shall not have the poll tax. We have gone back to a modified form of rateable value and a banding system. I believe that the ground has been cut from under the feet of people who say that water metering is the only way to deal with the situation left as a result of the collapse of the rateable value system.
I refer to the cost of the operation. I know, because I was involved in the matter that 25 per cent. or more of water was being lost in the mains system. I listened with great interest to what the noble Earl said. However, I doubt whether the investment programmes in such large conurbations as Liverpool and Glasgow have broken the back of the problem relating to the dangerous use of lead piping to transport water. I doubt whether that problem will be solved for a long time. The cost of installing water meters is likely to be considerable and will not justify the fuss that is being created.
What about the army of water meter inspectors who will be required? In the past I have had cause to ask, "Can't we do something about the army of inspectors knocking on the doors of houses all over the country?". I refer to gas and electricity meter inspectors, and now there will be water meter inspectors. It is bureaucratic nonsense. I do not understand how any government who wish to restrict unnecessary expenditure in such areas can entertain the idea. At one Cabinet meeting we considered whether we could have one group of inspectors to view all the meters. However, the uproar from the vested interests which had their financial affairs put into the hands of people not directly responsible to them was interesting to behold at the time. However, more and more people are becoming anxious about the number of people who knock on their doors, saying that they are inspectors of one kind or another. It is a hazard of our modern society whose growth we ought not to encourage.
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter. I do not believe that water metering is necessary for domestic purposes. The charging system can make allowance for the additional use of water for gardens, cars and so on, as it used to in the old days. Let us realise that providence has provided a good, clean water supply to the people of this country. I believe that it should remain freely available to them.
6.37 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful for the courtesy of the House in allowing me to speak briefly. I have been away for a few weeks and had not realised that this interesting and important Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, was on the Order Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, seems to be living in a country called Utopia. If I heard him aright, he suggested that the water in this country belonged to everyone and that they should have it virtually free. If I have misquoted him, I apologise. But that suggestion has to be impractical.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for allowing me to intervene. I said that water was provided by the Almighty. If that is regarded as a Utopian proposition, I have to plead guilty.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the clarification. However, at the end of the day, , water has to be paid for, and paid for substantially, in particular nowadays when further requirements emanate from that remarkable organisation in Brussels which wants us to improve our water —and I had always believed that our water was substantially better than theirs. Such a provision costs a substantial sum of money.
I do not understand why we are considering the difference between the introduction of national metering of water, leaving matters in status quo, or having the cost based on rateable value (for want of a better word). The situation is no different from that of electricity or gas. There may well be hundreds of inspectors checking up on consumption of electricity or gas. I see no reason why there should not be some check on the amount of water consumed by individual customers. That seems entirely fair and right.
What are we trying to do? Are we trying to save water; or do we consider that it is a commodity available for all in unlimited quantities? I suggest that the former is more realistic. The only way that one can save water is to monitor it. To monitor water, it has to be metered. It is not a difficult matter to have check meters. I believe that I answer the question put to my noble friend by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Check meters are an efficient and simple method of discovering leaks in a main or sub-main supply before it reaches consumers. If consumers with meters wish to use an unlimited amount of water to water their gardens or wash their cars that is entirely their decision, but they will have to pay for it. It does not seem to me to be fair or right for the next door household to feel that they should be more circumspect about saving water and therefore not water their garden or wash their car to the same extent as their neighbours just because they are not metered. They will pay the same if both houses are rated—I use that expression in advance of the council tax banding which we would probably go onto if we were talking about rateable values. If one wants something in this life one should pay for it; if not, one does not pay for it. Metering is a very good way to check on whether

65
there is wastage or unwarranted use of water. Obviously, difficulties can arise in the case of large blocks of flats, and so forth. However, if the electricity and gas boards can get the system right surely it is not impossible for the water companies to devise a sensible and satisfactory system to all concerned. The average household is thought to use approximately 100 gallons of water per day per person. In terms of present charges, that equates approximately to £150 a year for each household, assuming that each household has two people living in it.
The cost of the installation of meters has been blown out of all proportion. The cost is thought to be between £160 and £200—possibly a total figure of several billion pounds. A capital investment is required but in return there should be a charge made for the rent of meters. Speaking on the basis of a very small experience at home where I supply a substantial number of people with water, since the collapse of the rateable value system in the country I put every single property, water trough, and what have you, onto a meter. I have not had one single complaint. I have come across only two cases where elderly persons living on their own have had to pay more for their water during the year than they would have done had it been based upon rateable value. I do not know whether or not that would occur in future if charging was based upon banding under the council tax arrangements, but I do believe that there is some iniquity where the meter rate is of the order of £66 a year and one uses only £75 worth of water per year as a single person. I accept that that seems somewhat out of proportion, but there are probably ways in which that can be overcome.
This matter should be taken seriously. Metering is effective. It will obviate unnecessary leakage and people will be left to decide how much water they want to use. I very much hope that the matter will be given great attention and that we shall see metering as a necessary part of the provision of water to all our people.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being able to get my name on the list this morning. For that reason I will not make a long contribution.
First, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for putting down this Question which is very timely. One asks why the Question had to be asked at all. Fundamentally, the reason seems to me to be that we have attempted to get rid of the rates. I believe it is recognised that the separation of water rates from domestic rates, and the provision of separate bills for households for the supply of water have given rise to many problems. We have a situation where the number of disconnections for the non-payment of water bills has escalated since the introduction of the change. That was virtually unheard of in this country prior to a couple of years ago. We appear to be going further down the road that will lead to problems. Water metering will bring problems to the most vulnerable members of our society and it will be unfair. Other citizens will also
66
experience problems. Mention has been made of the large family particularly with small children. Do the Government believe it is sensible to institute a charging system that will penalise manual workers and their families more than white-collar workers and their families? I am not sure that that is the Government's intention but that is how it will be seen.
Water supply is a long-term business requiring high capital investment that is paid for over a large number of years. The investment made in the last century to supply water to the main industrial and urban conurbations is still being used today. One has only to think of the water supply to Manchester or Birmingham to realise the long-term nature of the water supply industry. The use of water depends very much on long-term factors. One thinks of the toilet systems installed in our houses that may last for 30 or 40 years. They determine water usage. Washing machines also determine water usage. One thinks of the difference between showers and baths. They determine water usage. The capital facilities within a household will determine the water usage to a large extent.
Another relevant factor is that water usage will change over time within a particular family. One thinks of a family with young children where frequent nappy changes are required. That will require the high use of water. As that family grows up and changes, the use of water by the household will also change. Why should the payment for water be determined by the situation of a household at one particular point in time when water usage will vary over the years? We need to recognise that the payment for water in our country will be best determined by a system of taxation —as it has been historically for over 100 years —based on the ability to pay. Allusion has already been made to the introduction of the poll tax. That was introduced as a system which was seen to be fairer. Yet in a society where the extremes of income and wealth are getting greater that system of payment is palpably unfair. That has been recognised by the British people and Parliament has sought to change it. We have changed it. We are bringing back a system much more akin to the old rates system. I would argue that between now and the end of the century that system will become much fairer, and much more equitable across society as a whole. In the future, between now and the end of the century, we should look to paying for water by some mechanism associated with the system of fair rates.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest. I have a connection with a company which is developing a system for the remote reading of meters (electricity, gas and water) that might help to solve the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to a moment ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, in introducing the debate, said that he considered that there ought to be a public debate on the issue. He is quite right, and we are indebted to him that he has given us the chance to

67
have a preliminary canter tonight. We have dealt with many of the issues that are likely to arise in the wider debate which will certainly come.
I do not believe that the question of water metering can be taken in isolation. It has to be seen in the whole context of our water strategy. I regard the objective of our water strategy to be to supply consumers with adequate supplies of water, of suitable quality, at lowest practical cost and on a sustained basis. I imagine I have got it about right. Anything that contributes to that end is in the interests of the consumer.
The first thing that has to be done is to make sure that there will be adequate supplies of water to meet the prospective needs. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, rightly said from his great experience, there are adequate supplies of water in this country, taken as a whole, to meet the current and perhaps projected needs of the country. But I must say that, looking a bit further ahead than perhaps he thought of doing, we might have to contemplate the possible impact of global warming if that should come. If we have an increase in temperature of two or three degrees both in summer and winter, what impact will that have on water supplies? That is something that ought to be studied. But leaving that aside, there is the question of regional imbalances to which various noble Lords referred. The noble Earl referred to it, as did the noble Lords, Lord Cocks and Lord Howell, and others.
I am very pleased that efforts are being made to carry out transfers of water. Over the past year or two during the period of drought many questions have been asked on the Floor of this House about these transfers. I certainly think that they ought to be carried forward as much as possible.
I regret that the concept of a national grid was not pursued more vigorously at the time when it was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. It would certainly have cost less then than if we were to do it now. That is something very much to be said in its favour. I think that we would be much better off if we had one. But we have not, and perhaps the cost now would be considered too much.
Apart from the question of making sure that there are adequate water supplies both nationally and regionally, we have to make sure that we have an adequate and effective distribution system. The question of loss of water was referred to by many noble Lords. The average leakage in the public supply system is estimated, as I understand it, to be of the order of 22 per cent., varying from 6 per cent. to 36 per cent. That seems an appalling loss of water. Much is now being done, I believe, to put it right. The estimated loss through leakage in consumers' premises is estimated to be of the order of about 8 per cent. Obviously it is in the interest of consumers to try to get that put right. Altogether, one-third of the water that is distributed in this country is lost. That represents a major challenge.
Another aspect of the matter—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to it—is efficiency in the use of water once it gets into the home. There could be technical developments to bring about
68
that efficiency. The use of water in toilet systems, for example, could be much improved, as could the use of water in washing machines, and so on. The suggestion has been made that these various items of domestic equipment could well have labels on them showing which were water-efficient and which were not. That would be in the general interest.
All these things lead naturally to the question of charging policy. It fits into the whole pattern of water strategy. The issue in the debate today is whether there should be a metered system such as is adopted in most other countries and in industry and commerce in this country, or whether we should continue to have the kind of system we have now which at the moment is related to rateable value and, after the year 2000, according to the Government's proposals, should relate to some other basis.
There is not the slightest doubt that if the objective is to try to make the best use of water, metering is a much better way of doing it than making a standard charge. Therefore I feel that there is a strong case for metering in those regions which have been, and are likely to continue to be, short of water. It is a sensible thing to do, and Anglia Water are indeed going ahead with a metering system.
Having said that, a very strong case was made—an indisputable case—for those who would be likely to suffer from a metered system; namely, families on low incomes with large numbers of children. There is no doubt that something would have to be done for them. There is absolute agreement among everybody who has spoken tonight that that question has to be dealt with. But in indicating that there is such a social problem, I do not think it destroys the case for metering in general. There is a problem; it has to be dealt with. But I believe that particularly in regions of the country that are likely to run short of water and where other ways of overcoming that could be more costly, metering would be desirable.
Furthermore, I believe that metering ought to be available to people as of choice. Reference was made, apart from to people on low incomes with many children, to elderly people and where there are just two of them living in a small house. I happen to come into that category. Some years ago I changed to a meter. My small house happens to be located in a highly rated area and we are away from it a lot. Within one year I got the money back on the meter. That was a very satisfactory transaction. I feel that people who are in that situation should have the choice of going onto a meter if they wish. I believe that that is generally proposed.
It concerns me that, if we are to go to a system in which some areas are to be metered, let us say those where water is likely to be in short supply, it would raise the question of what type of charging would be applied to the remainder of the country. Clearly we cannot continue ad infinitum on the rateable value basis. There are no rateable values any more and it has been decided—rightly in my opinion—that that system should no longer be used after the year 2000.
I do not think that transferring from rateable value to a council tax basis solves anything. It just goes back to the same type of system. To have a standard charge

69
for every household does not seem to me to be a very sensible way of proceeding because one gets wide variations in usage. So the question of banding is suggested. That would be desirable if to some degree the banding could reflect the likely usage. One gets into difficulties there. One can band according to the type of house and according to the occupancy at a certain date, which would presumably have to be declared. But I believe that a lot of thought has to be given to the alternative to metering. We are not there yet. I have looked at most of the documents on the case, as we all have, and I cannot see that much attention has been given to the matter.
In conclusion, I think the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, was absolutely right to raise the matter at this time. I think certain factors in regard to what must be done are becoming very clear.
We must take account of social circumstances. I believe that metering needs to be applied in those regions where there is likely to be a water shortage, but above all we must give a great deal of thought to what kind of charging system would apply elsewhere if there is not to be a general metering system.
7.00 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe for raising this matter this evening. I too have to declare an interest, not as a director of a company that reads meters but as one who has a water meter. I have one from Welsh Water in Wales and I shall come back to the problems associated with metering—not that I wish to pursue a personal vendetta against Welsh Water, but I shall return to the point as a matter of general principle in a minute.
The question of metering was fundamental to the Water Act 1989. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out, it was assumed at that time—and it was a fairly easy assumption —that, with rates disappearing and the poll tax arriving, any idea of a rateable value being a possible basis of charging for water was absurd. Even allowing for the fact that it was unconstitutional for private companies to charge taxes, the rateable value was considered absurd since the rateable value would disappear. Thus, it was an easy assumption at the time.
Since then, we have had a rather interesting debate. First, the poll tax disappeared—and we must all be grateful for that. We have got back to a banding property tax and I think we are probably on the right lines, although I could argue with the Government on various aspects of the council tax. Nevertheless, the Government and the Director of Ofwat seem, in all kinds of documents—and your Lordships have most recently had the one called Paying For Growth—to insist that water meters are the right way of setting about charging for domestic use.
Your Lordships have put forward many arguments this evening: they fall into four categories, in my view. First, metering is immoral; secondly, it is inequitable; thirdly, it is impractical; and fourthly, it is unhealthy. I shall address those arguments as I go forward and on the whole I agree with them.
70
First, equity: the problem is that if water metering is introduced under the terms of the Water Act 1989, as it is on new properties, it can be introduced only partially. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of what I mean. A consumer advice bureau in Essex reports that a man who moved into a new property was told that he had to have a water meter as there was no rateable value on the properties. The resulting bill was roughly twice what people in similar older properties pay under the rateable value system. A consumer advice bureau in South Yorkshire reports that tenants on a new estate have been advised to put aside £7 per week for water. The rateable value would have meant a bill of £3.50 per week.
It has been documented by citizens advice bureaux on many occasions that in each case where water metering is introduced, it appears to give rise to an enormous increase in charges. That is noted by the director in the document Paying for Water: the way ahead and in the document Paying for Growth. I am sure that the Government have noted it. So why should we have the introduction of water meters which give rise to an increase on what people would otherwise pay?
The second point about equity concerned partial metering. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, gave examples of where there might be reasonable differences, but it seems to me that it is more than a question of reasonable differences: it is the mere fact that in new properties there has to be metering but in old properties there does not. That will give rise to a two-tier system all over England and Wales and probably in Scotland, should the Government decide to get their Bill through to privatise Scottish Water.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, raised the question of responsibility for leakage in the system. Here again, we come to the problem of equity. In the old days, if I may use that expression, under the system of rateable values, the water board was responsible for leakages. In the new days under metering, anyone on the domestic side of the meter is responsible for what happens on their side of the meter. The water company is only responsible for what happens on the water company's side of the meter. I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me, but here I come back to my experience in Wales. I have a water meter. Fortunately, we have a spring so most of the year we use the spring. When I got home I received a bill from Welsh Water plc for £20,000. It so happened that that weekend I was speaking to the Welsh Heart Foundation and I thought that I would probably be a candidate for treatment by the foundation when I received that bill for £20,000. It turned out that they were claiming that it was all due to leakage on my side of the meter. I said that it was impossible, it simply could not be true. However, they responded, "Yes, it is". I said, "Well, you must take me to court, I'm not going to have this". Then they changed their minds and said, "Oh yes, the meter got stuck, so we won't worry you any more and we will put in a bill for £20". I said, "That's fair enough, I'll settle for £20". Nevertheless, they had been prepared to send bills at random around the country. Fortunately, I was in a position to argue about it and they accepted my

71
argument. I should have been able to take them to court but people who are less advantaged than I do not have that privilege. That is again where equity comes in.
The second point is that meters are impractical. The Water Act states simply that all households should have access to supplies. That is an excellent principle. The problem is that the rise in water prices and the extraordinary rise in the number of disconnections —and the noble Baroness no doubt has the figures —mean that houses which are disconnected as a result of the appropriate procedures stop being houses which are habitable under Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. So the more metering and disconnections continue, the fewer houses there are which are habitable. The result is that environmental health officers will have to come into the matter and argue with the water companies about the process of disconnections which we all thought had been established in the code of practice under the Water Act.
The third argument is that metering is basically immoral. There I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell. I feel that water is a gift of God—if one believes in that kind of thing—and we should not put a burden on those who are less able than others to pay for their water.
The last point is that it is unhealthy, and a number of noble Lords have made that point. Because of increased prices, the combination of high tariffs and metering will almost certainly lead to an unhealthy decline in water use. There will be less washing of clothes; fewer baths; people with eczema will suffer, as will people with other skin infections. Again, the intervention of environmental health officers will lead to enormous extra costs.
All this could be fairly easily handled were it not for the attitude of the water companies themselves. In this respect I come back to Welsh Water. If water companies see it as their duty to satisfy their shareholders, to award large salary increases to their chairmen and executive directors, to take over hotels, to take over electricity companies, to operate as entrepreneurial institutions, they are displaying an arrogance which is not permissible to custodians of what is a natural monopoly on which life depends.
I shall give the House one example of the arrogance of Thames Water. One would have thought that it would be anxious to encourage urban development corporations, a subject very near to the Minister's heart. Thames Water insists to the urban development corporation in London that, unlike all other utilities, there have to be advance payments for construction for connection to the mains. In the case of all other utilities the UDCs are generally able to negotiate "pay-as-you-go" arrangements. Only water differs in this respect. That is an example of the rather unpleasant attitude of the water companies.
What are the conclusions that arise from my noble friend's Question? The first is that the main plank for the argument for metering—that rateable values are to disappear—has now been removed, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. We are now going back
72
to a banded property-related and income-related tax. Incidentally, I add one rider to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that these matters are satisfactorily dealt with in other countries. The noble Lord, as a distinguished member of the foreign service, no doubt had the benefit of living in apartments organised by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I lived in Paris as an ordinary citizen for four years, in Brussels for 18 months and in Rome for a year. I never knew what on earth I was paying for the water because it was all subsumed in the rent that I was paying—and the concierge fiddled the figures anyway. So the idea that the system works in any meaningful sense for the private individual in the great continent of Europe is one of which from my personal experience I can fairly easily dispose.
Pre-payment meters are even worse because they lead to self disconnection. If one cannot afford the penny in the slot, the shilling in the slot, or whatever it may be, pre-payment meters, which are now being adopted by two water companies, will lead to self disconnection with all the problems involved. That is the first conclusion.
I turn to the second conclusion. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, that leakage is all important. I am sceptical about the Isle of Wight evidence. I do not believe that what is coming out of the Isle of Wight is necessarily true for the country as a whole. Furthermore, we have seriously to address the problem of leakage control, not on an economic basis, as the noble Earl tried to imply —the idea that we should do everything economically viable to stop leakage in the system—but on the basis of stopping leakage in the system, full stop. As my noble friend Lord Howell said, water is not an economic commodity.
My next conclusion is that a two-tier system of metering and non-metering is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, in some way inevitable and that we must cater for that. But, if there is to be metering—this is my fourth conclusion—there must be, in spite of what Mr. Byatt of Ofwat said in his report, some adjustment for the social costs of what is happening. It is no good simply saying that water is an economic commodity and that we do not care about the social costs of the introduction of metering. That is the way forward to disaster. The fact of the matter is that privatisation of water as a natural monopoly, a commodity without which life cannot exist, has led to all the muddle which the Government now find themselves in.
I need hardly say that not only has the debate been useful but I do not think that the Government have even started to take the problem seriously. I suppose we should not be surprised about that but I hope that the noble Baroness, when she comes to answer, can assure us that the Government are taking seriously a problem which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, will be on the agenda politically—right at the top perhaps—over the next four or five years. If they cannot ensure access to supply at all times for everyone at a fair price they will find that people will

73
tell them to pack their bags and go. The issue is that important. I hope the noble Baroness recognises that and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the question of water metering and for giving me the opportunity to examine the issue from the consumer's point of view. The noble Lord made reference to cricketing skills. I am beginning to wonder whether the noble Lord's own sport is regulator baiting. If it is, I am sure that we shall be able to bet on the evening.
The use of meters as a means of charging for water and sewerage services is not new. A substantial number of households in the Malvern area have had their use of water metered and have been charged on that basis for more than 100 years. As several noble Lords have pointed out, it is indeed commonplace in Europe and the United States. However, it is only in recent years that water companies have been looking seriously at the potential of installing water meters as a method of charging for their services.
Your Lordships will be aware that all water companies must move to a new method of charging for their services by the year 2000 when charging for water and sewerage on the basis of rateable value of property will be prohibited. The companies are considering a number of options which include metering, a flat rate charge and charges which are related to the classification of property into a number of bands based on certain criteria. It is for each water company to decide on its preferred method of charging according to the particular circumstances in its operating area. It must, however, satisfy the Director General of Water Services that the charging method it chooses and the associated tariff does not give undue preference to or unduly discriminate against any class or group of customers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when he says that the alternative means of charging other than metering require close attention.
I have heard the matter disputed by noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, but I believe that water metering is potentially the fairest method of charging. There are matters that have to be analysed and worked upon in association with this; but water metering would seem to offer that. Ofwat is not suggesting that it is a universal solution. The director general's published conclusions following consultation on Paying for Water set out a strategy that aims among other things to respond to the views expressed by many customers that they should pay in relation to the volume of water used. I hasten to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, without indulging in an analysis of which are the most successful market research methods and questionnaire methodology, that the main purpose of the survey was to give customers an opportunity to express a view. Indeed, there is no firm evidence to back up the NCC's suggestion that those who replied were not average water consumers or were only those who could expect to pay less under metering. Perhaps I may also point
74
out that the surveys were only one part of the whole consultation exercise. Views were expressed from 30 consumer organisations, and individual letters were received from about 2,000 customers as well as from the 10 regional Ofwat customer service committees who have a statutory duty, as your Lordships know, to represent the views of customers.
The aim of the director general's strategy is to extend metering selectively in places where the overall benefit to customers outweighs the cost of installation; and to improve the customer's awareness of the right to opt for a meter at their own expense, as many of your Lordships have, in order to save money on their bills. I was pleased to note that as regards noble Lords who have benefited from that system, the balance was rather better than for those who seem, momentarily, unbenefited. There is also the strategy to develop tariff structures so that payments are more closely related to water use and rely less on standing charges and lump sum contributions for connection to the system.
It is important—I believe that my noble friend Lord Lindsay drew attention to it—to appreciate that we are dealing with a precious commodity, the supply of which must be used efficiently. We are asking that the consumer has the opportunity to choose between the volume of water used, which metering allows them to know, or the cost of an additional reservoir which, put on to their bills, would create infinitely greater hardship than some of the charges talked about by your Lordships.
The director general concluded that a rapid switch to metering would be unnecessarily expensive and advocated a selective approach, concentrating on areas where supplies are short and where the discretionary use for such activities as watering gardens by sprinklers is high or where the cost of installation is low; for example, in new properties or when work is being carried out on existing service pipes.
Most water companies have introduced metering for new or converted properties which do not have a rateable value. Three companies in the South and East have recently announced plans to compulsorily meter existing properties. Other companies in the South with water resource problems may follow that lead.
The Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, asks specifically about the benefits which metering will bring to the domestic consumer. I am sure that he would like to think that those with swimming pools, sprinklers and Range-Rovers to clean, will pay more than the person living alone in a small flat. All water companies are required to operate a meter option scheme whereby customers may opt to have a meter installed at their own expense. Many customers who have taken advantage of that scheme have indeed benefited from savings.
The impact of compulsory metering on customers' bills is in general less than many people expected. Unfortunately, I cannot share the noble Lord's "Betjeman" view of the Isle of Wight. The recession has hit the Isle of Wight as well as other places. Data from the metering trials has indicated that about

75
two-thirds of the customers paid about the same or less than they would have done under the rateable value system of charging.
Paying for the volume of water used also gives customers an element of control over the size of their bills. I accept that water is essential to life, and that there are minimum requirements for the maintenance of health and hygiene. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the comparison with air made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. That seems to require rather less—if any—infrastructure compared with water. I fear that although it is God-given, I have yet to view God as an effective plumber. Beyond that, paying by volume means that customers are in a position to decide how much they want to spend on water, and they can influence the level of their bills by reducing discretionary use.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, gave a very good argument for metering in drawing attention to the fact that people with washing machines and other equipment can make the decision as to the amount of water for which they will be charged. But the director general is ensuring that increases in water charges are kept to the minimum necessary. They may well increase by more than the rate of inflation—at least up to the end of the century—in order to finance improvements in water quality and sewage treatment required to meet EC standards, and for the restoration and maintenance of the existing system.
In this period of rising prices, the ability to influence the size of water bills will be welcomed by many customers. In areas where water demand is increasing and supplies are scarce, the compulsory metering of households, even for part of the company's area, may allow the costly development of new resources to be deferred and then result in lower bills. Water service from the installation of meters may also produce benefits to consumers during periods of low rainfall. Again, evidence from the Isle of Wight shows that where meters have been progressively installed, during the recent drought in the South-East it was possible to maintain supplies without any of the restrictions such as hosepipe bans which were enforced in many areas on the mainland. There can be wider environmental benefits where a reduced demand from metering can lead to lower abstraction and consequently an improvement in maintenance and water flow in rivers.
I can understand that many people, and everyone in your Lordships' House, has reservations about the impact of metering on large, low-income families and households containing someone who needs to use unusually large amounts of water because of a medical condition. As a result of these worries, we conducted a survey jointly with the Office of Water Services on the social impact of water metering. It was conducted in the 12 metering trial areas, and about 6,000 households were interviewed.
Your Lordships will be interested to know that the survey found that most households have not experienced difficulties as a consequence of metering, and that a large majority thought it reasonable to meter water. Only about 3.8 per cent. of the customers
76
interviewed could be regarded as having suffered some form or degree of hardship. I agree with noble Lords that the matter must be dealt with. I believe that it is a larger problem than that identified by your Lordships because not only is the cost of water expensive for large families—possibly single parent families—but we also have to be concerned about the heating costs for that water. There is an issue here which is not by any means restricted to water.
I accept that the metering trial areas are not representative of the country as a whole and that metering in other areas could possibly result in higher rates of hardship than were found in the survey. I am pleased to assure noble Lords that we are looking at the findings of the study and considering possible ways of alleviating the kinds of difficulties experienced by some households.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She mentioned the inquiry into the effects of water metering. She seems to have spoken only in terms of the effects on individual households. Have any measures been taken to judge the general effects on society of water metering? I am thinking in terms of the effect of the disconnection of water from a block of flats which resulted in an enormous smell in the surrounding neighbourhood. Can the noble Baroness say what is the effect likely to be on society at large and not just on the individual household?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the overall effect has to be taken into account. Moving to the subject of disconnections, the Government believe that customers should pay their bills. We support the actions that the director general has taken following the increase in the number of customers who were disconnected for the non-payment of their water charges during the year 1991–92. There has been some welcome improvement in the recorded level of disconnections in the six months to 30th September, but it is too early to predict the impact of the director general's actions on the number of disconnections. We believe that disconnections should be limited to those who can pay but who choose not to. Such people should not fall as a cost on those who genuinely cannot pay or on those who make every effort to pay. It is important that that is understood.
I understand that there was an unusual case of tenants being disconnected, and perhaps that is what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was referring to. The case involved 16 out of 114 tenants. The local authority was alerted and all those who were contactable had their supply restored quickly. Local authorities have the powers to deal with such matters and, as can be seen in this case, can deal quickly with them.
Perhaps I may thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for bringing his usual well-informed views on this matter before your Lordships' House and for drawing attention to the enormous infrastructure spend which is essential in relation to water. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, drew attention to current needs, to the situation as it is now and to the fact that householders have been happy to be able to measure their

77
consumption of other utility services. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised a point which I hope answers that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. He said that technology will soon mean that meter reading does not have to take place inside a house. That will be a great social benefit for all concerned.
I have to admire the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on water matters. It is perhaps greater than that of most of your Lordships, but I certainly do not suggest that that would ever allow him to be categorized as a "wet". However, I have to be philosophically opposed to his views. I must advise him that the long-distance transfer of water, using rivers and canals, has been considered, and although it was not rejected out of hand it could, however, cost several billion pounds. The National Rivers Authority continues to examine the possibility of other forms of long-distance transfer and whether it would be beneficial. Again, it is important that costs are kept down. There have been some criticisms of the use of the word "economically", but I believe that for the benefit of the users we should be looking at the economic delivery of water. We are talking about the cost to and the load on families.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret referred to the need for efficiency in the delivery of this service. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, identifying the fact that water is used most efficiently in areas of shortage if it is metered. Everything that we are seeing leads to that conclusion.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay asked about council tax valuations. We are aware that some water companies have asked about using council tax valuations as a basis for their future methods of charging for water. Your Lordships may recall that during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 we said that, as a general rule, it was not our policy that whole valuation lists should be sold to third parties which compile data bases of personal information. Regulations will be necessary if the valuations are to be used for other purposes. We shall consider whether to allow the use of valuation lists for
78
water charging purposes as part of our deliberations on the consultation paper which seeks views on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the concern about prepayment meters. They are intended to help customers to budget and to avoid getting into debt. A water key budget system has been developed and is currently being trialled by Severn Trent Water plc in the Birmingham area and is being monitored closely by the Office of Water Services. It is similar to the scheme which is used by the gas and electricity services. It enables customers to buy as much water as they can afford when recharging the water key. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that if a customer fails to recharge the water key before the credit runs out, the system allows water to be obtained for a further seven days. It is well recognised that we do not want to put such people at a disadvantage.
The noble Lord also referred to company profits, dividends and directors' salaries. The water companies need to be profitable if they are to fund the considerable capital investment programmes that we need. The remuneration of directors and senior managers is a matter for the companies and their shareholders. However, we have made it clear that customers are entitled to look to the leaders of the regulated water companies to set an example. I endorse that view wholeheartedly.
The failure to pay bills is not currently restricted to areas where there is metering. Nearly 1 million summonses were issued for the non-payment of bills in 1991–92. For some people, paying water bills is a problem whichever method of charging is used. As I said, we should endeavour to deal with that problem.
I close by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I thank also all noble Lords who have spoken and brought extremely well-informed views to the debate. Whatever the views expressed, it can only be to the benefit of consumers when matters such as this are discussed in your Lordships' House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock.

  BOSNIA: HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
  BOSNIA: HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
  INTELLIGENCE COLLABORATION WITH US
  INTELLIGENCE COLLABORATION WITH US
  BRITISH RAIL PRIVATISATION AND MoD ESTABLISHMENTS
  BRITISH RAIL PRIVATISATION AND MoD ESTABLISHMENTS
  BRITISH RAIL AND MARKET TESTING OF ARMED FORCES SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
  BRITISH RAIL AND MARKET TESTING OF ARMED FORCES SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
  CAR PARKS: CONTROL OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES
  CAR PARKS: CONTROL OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES
  ASTRA HOLDINGS PLC
  ASTRA HOLDINGS PLC
  TOURISM MINISTERS' VISITS TO THE WEST COUNTRY
  TOURISM MINISTERS' VISITS TO THE WEST COUNTRY
  HIV AND AIDS: REPORT ON CAUSATION
  HIV AND AIDS: REPORT ON CAUSATION
  VEHICLE EXHAUSTS AND PASSIVE SMOKING: DANGERS
  VEHICLE EXHAUSTS AND PASSIVE SMOKING: DANGERS
  ACCIDENTS IN NHS HOSPITALS: PREVENTION
  ACCIDENTS IN NHS HOSPITALS: PREVENTION
  LONDON HOSPITALS: STAFF NUMBERS
  LONDON HOSPITALS: STAFF NUMBERS
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991: DISCUSSIONS WITH MAGISTRATES
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991: DISCUSSIONS WITH MAGISTRATES
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991: EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991: EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
  EXCEPTIONAL LEAVE TO REMAIN
  EXCEPTIONAL LEAVE TO REMAIN
  ASYLUM APPLICATIONS: UNFOUNDED CLAIMS
  ASYLUM APPLICATIONS: UNFOUNDED CLAIMS
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: RELEASE ON LICENCE
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: RELEASE ON LICENCE
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM RELIGIOUS EDUCATION SYLLABUSES
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM RELIGIOUS EDUCATION SYLLABUSES
  BENZOPYRENE MEASUREMENTS
  BENZOPYRENE MEASUREMENTS
  TRIBUNALS: EFFECTIVENESS OF REPRESENTATION
  TRIBUNALS: EFFECTIVENESS OF REPRESENTATION
  LEGAL AID PAYMENT RATES TO COUNSEL
  LEGAL AID PAYMENT RATES TO COUNSEL
  PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES' FEES TO INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONERS
  PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES' FEES TO INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONERS