Sitting of 7 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the county constituency of Christchurch, in the room of the hon. Robert James Adley Esquire, deceased. —[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Royal High School
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Crown Office to vacate the old Royal High school in Edinburgh; and what plans he has for the future use of the building.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): The Crown Office is expected to vacate the old Royal High school at the beginning of 1994. The building is the responsibility of Property Holdings, which is currently considering its future.
    Mr. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the Crown Office is leaving the old Royal High school, that it costs £150,000 per annum to maintain and keep secure, and that it was used only three times last year, surely the time has come for the Government to dispose of the building, which has become a monument to and a relic of the failed and discredited policy of the Labour party? Does he furthermore agree that it would make an ideal art gallery or museum of Scottish history?
    Mr. Lang: The building is not the direct responsibility of the Scottish Office, but the developments that I have just described show the need for the Government to consider where future meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee —if and when in Edinburgh—should take place. There is no shortage of alternative buildings in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Canavan: Would not it be in everyone's best interests if the Scottish Parliament moved into the old high school building? The Crown Office team could move across the road to the ministerial suite at the Scottish Office, and the ministerial team at the Scottish Office could be evicted to the top of Leith walk, where I am sure there is a convenient phone box big enough to hold them and their dwindling band of supporters in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman has given us a glimpse of the Labour party's manifesto for the next general election, I look forward to that campaign.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State recall that three quarters of the Scottish people voted for a Scottish Parliament, and would much prefer that that Parliament met in the Royal High school? Would not it be outrageous if the Government's profiteering dogma led to that building being used for any other purpose? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Scottish people would much prefer their elected representatives to discuss, for example, their local government than to have policies handed down to them in dribs and drabs by leaked documents in a thoroughly unacceptable way?
    Mr. Lang: The Royal High school was built as a school —it may have been an appropriate design for a school in its day—but the building has no special significance as regards the deliberations of the House or its Committee. If it stands as anything, perhaps it is as a monument to the folly of the last Labour Government who, in anticipation of the outcome of a referendum and of a subsequent general election, spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money and subsequently found themselves rejected in a referendum and a general election.

    Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss the provision of services in Scotland.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss the provision of services in Scotland.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet COSLA to discuss the provision of local government services in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend the Minister for industry and local government and I will be meeting representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on Friday this week as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.
    Mr. McMaster: May I jolt the Secretary of State's memory back to the time when he first mooted that stupid plan to reorganise local government in Scotland? Does he recall that the Opposition predicted then that he was not about to embark on a voyage of discovery, because he knew precisely where his journey would lead? If the stories in The Scotsman are right—I suspect that they are not far wrong—how does the Secretary of State justify treating the House and the people of Scotland with such arrogant contempt? Which Minister authorised the leak or, if it was not authorised, what action has the right hon. Gentleman taken to find the source? How can he deny that the purpose of the exercise is to save the last few Tory enclaves in Scotland? Does he seriously expect anyone to believe that the whole blatant, bogus, bankrupt exercise is anything other than a squalid and corrupt piece of gerrymandering by a squalid and corrupt Government?
    Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not normal practice to comment on allegedly leaked documents. The proposals for local government reform that we shall bring before the House shortly will be the outcome of a longer, more detailed and comprehensive consultation process than any previous Government

    315
    initiative that I can remember. It is encouraging that, far from being unpopular, local government reform is rising consistently in the opinion polls.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: If local government reform is rising in public opinion polls, the same is certainly not happening to the prestige of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which is hitting a new low. Surely the leaks in The Scotsman, which have not been denied by anyone in the Government, confirm that the Secretary of State has lost his hold on the Scottish Office administration, and that something really has to be done about it. It is not good enough to treat the representatives of Scottish local authorities with such contempt. They are elected in their own right, and speak for the people of Scotland in a way that the Secretary of State could not hope to achieve.
    Mr. Lang: Setting aside the hon. Gentleman's last remark, which questions both the validity of election to this place and the importance of this Parliament for Scotland, as for the rest of the United Kingdom, allow me to emphasise that I have considerable respect for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is why I, along with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for local government, have regular meetings with its representatives.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Secretary of State explain his refusal to appoint a committee to investigate the local government changes in Scotland? Did he take the decision upon himself, or did he authorise Vance and Owen to come to Scotland and build safe Tory havens there?
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman contains his soul in patience he will shortly understand what we propose for Scotland.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend received representations on local government reorganisation from all the parties, or is he still waiting for the Opposition's policies on that subject, as on so many others?
    Mr. Lang: We have received a substantial number of representations on local government reform, from a broad range of sources. Some were positive and forward-looking, and we have taken those seriously into account. Others were less so, and they, of course, have been taken less seriously.
    Mr. McAllion: When the Secretary of State meets representatives of COSLA, will he explain to them whether the Government intend to bring England and Wales into line with Scotland by making it illegal to disconnect domestic consumers from the water supply in England and Wales, or to bring Scotland into line with England and Wales by making it legal to disconnect domestic consumers in Scotland? If, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, this is a unitary Parliament ruling over a unitary British state, he cannot discriminate between citizens of that state on the basis of where they happen to live. What is the Government's intention?
    Mr. Lang: Perhaps the reason why the hon. Gentleman is so careless about safeguarding the Union is that he does not realise that Union does not necessarily mean uniformity. One of the features of Scotland's position within the United Kingdom is our capacity to accommodate the diversity of Scottish interests and needs.
    316
    I am not responsible for disconnections policy in England and Wales, and I would not presume to offer advice to my colleagues on the subject. With regard to Scotland, my answer remains what it has always been: I have no plans to make any changes there.
    Mr. John Marshall: As a former Aberdeen city councillor, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear to COSLA that many Conservative Members believe that the four Scottish cities should once again become all-purpose local authorities?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case, and, indeed, we are already committed to creating all-purpose local authorities, the details of which I look forward to announcing shortly.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If the integrity of the current Borders region boundaries is breached by, for example, putting Berwickshire with East Lothian—causing local anger and outrage, especially in Berwickshire—will the Secretary of State give the House an idea of what level of public demonstration of discontent he is prepared to accept to make him change his cock-eyed proposals?
    Mr. Lang: I hope that when our proposals are presented to the House and to the people of Scotland, they will be popular I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the report in today's newspapers about the forthcoming proposals of the independent and impartial Parliamentary Boundary Commission. That is a matter for it and not for me.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: When the Secretary of State meets representatives of COSLA, especially those from Dumfries and Galloway, will he discuss possible improvements to the ferry facilities at Stranraer harbour?
    Mr. Lang: I may not have the opportunity to place the question of harbour facilities at Stranraer on the agenda for the meeting on Friday, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Member of Parliament for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, I attach great importance to the improvement of facilities at the harbour in Stranraer.
    Mr. McFall: One of the most important local authority functions is the police. COSLA and others have already expressed great concern about the wholesale changes to the police authorities and their boundaries that the Government propose. Will he acknowledge that the Sheehy proposals for performance-related pay could, in some instances, result in the police boosting their pay by arresting people for minor offences, which currently are dealt with by a sensible use of discretion? When he next meets representatives of COSLA, will he explain what practical steps the Government will take to ensure that such an unfortunate situation does not arise?
    Mr. Lang: We shall have something to say about the future of police forces when we announce our proposals for the changes in local government. The Sheehy report is going out to consultation and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity, along with everybody else, to submit his thoughts during that consultative process.

    Industrial Contamination
    Q.3 Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider making an extra allocation of financial resources to Scottish local authorities to enable them to make safe sites contaminated by former industrial usage.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): Responsibility for dealing with contaminated land rests with the site owners. Local enterprise companies can assist with the reclamation of these sites and local authorities already receive funding through the revenue support grant for their expenditure on environmental services.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Minister aware that in Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Toryglen in my constituency a number of sites are contaminated by chromium waste dumped by a long-gone chemical works? Despite appreciated assistance from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), regarding finance for making those sites safe, whether they are publicly or privately owned, there is no finance available totally to clear them and to make them safe. Will the Minister assure us that the matter will be considered at a meeting with myself and other constituency representatives to try to find ways in which we can secure finance to make those sites safe for the public?
    Sir Hector Monro: I much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's involvement in the problem of chromium waste in his constituency and if I can help, I will gladly do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a matter for the local enterprise company, which in this case is the Glasgow Development Agency, and it must decide what financial assistance it can provide. If a meeting will help, we must arrange one.
    Dr. Godman: One tatty old building that has been contaminated by former industrial usage and neglect, well known to the Minister and myself, is the Gourock ropeworks building in Port Glasgow. Is that disgraceful old building to be conserved or demolished? Will the Minister make up his mind, because the Inverclyde district council simply does not have the wherewithal to pay for the conservation of the building? Why not play the game with the people of Port Glasgow and allow the building to be demolished?
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is an important and listed building, so we must be careful about the steps that we take. I understand that the enterprise authority is considering the matter, and a decision may be made in the not-too-distant future. We cannot pull down such an important building without the most careful consideration.

    Scottish Enterprise
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last had discussions with Scottish Enterprise on its outturn expenditure for 1992–93.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend and I have regular contact with Scottish Enterprise on a range of
    318
    matters. No meeting has taken place to discuss outturn expenditure for 1992–93 as it was within the budget limit, but did not involve significant underspending.
    Mr. Connarty: Has the Minister asked in the past, or will he ask in the future, for detailed figures about the amount spent by Scottish Enterprise and by the local enterprise companies on consultancies? Is he aware that when I criticised my local enterprise company for spending money on something that I thought was wrong, I had a flood of letters from businesses throughout Scotland saying that what disturbed them was that when they asked for money and assistance, they were sent a consultant? Those consultancies consist of what have been described as broken-down accountants, many of whom are former Scottish Development Agency employees.
    There is now a serious question, which I hope the Minister will investigate, about exactly how much pork barrelling is going on. If it is not illegal, just how much is value for money? The business community is growing sick of consultants, who were once SDA employees, growing fat and not aiding the companies that look for assistance, but lining their own pockets from Scottish Enterprise funds.
    Mr. Stewart: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's general allegation. There are facilities, which have been used, for audit investigations by Scottish Enterprise when there are allegations against local enterprise companies. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to take a strong interest in the activities of local enterprise companies and that he will make representations to them. They are ultimately publicly accountable, and it is healthy that the hon. Gentleman and others take a real and close interest in their detailed activities.
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) should come to my part of the world—Kincardine and Deeside. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in commending the Kincardine and Deeside Enterprise Trust, which is part of Grampian Enterprise, for setting up open learning schemes aimed at self-employed managers and intended specifically to teach them small business management and business methods, and to deal with tourism. Is not that Scottish Enterprise working at its best, being flexible and aiming its activities to where they are required in a way that makes it possible for managers to participate?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, when I was in his part of the world recently, I was able to see something of the work that the enterprise trust and Grampian Enterprise were undertaking in open learning and in other ways, such as the skill seeker programme in which Grampian Enterprise has been in the lead. That is the essence of the local enterprise company network. Individual enterprise companies can have flexibility and can take initiatives to meet the needs of their own local areas.
    Mr. Wallace: What percentage of Scottish Enterprise's budget is attributable to training? Given that the Minister has just explained to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East the importance that he attaches to public accountability, will he deplore the practice by some local enterprise companies of inserting contractual terms that prohibit any training provider from criticising the local enterprise company for any of the ways in which it handles the

    319
    budget? Surely the local enterprise companies, which are responsible for public money, should not seek to make themselves immune from public criticism.
    Mr. Stewart: The local enterprise companies do not seek to make themselves immune from public criticism. They have to have meetings and they have to publish accounts. Ultimately, they are responsible, through Scottish Enterprise and the Secretary of State, to the House.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of allegations made by the Labour MEPs MacMahon and McCubbin that Scottish Enterprise has misused European social funds? The fact that they have made those allegations may have jeopardised future funding. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether there is any truth in the allegations? If he cannot confirm their truth, will he condemn the actions of those who have been elected to responsible places and yet have acted so contemptuously?
    Mr. Stewart: Not only am I aware of the allegations, which received wide publicity, but I wrote to Mr. Hugh MacMahon, with copies to Mr. McCubbin and to hon. Members. I shall put the matter in a more neutral way than my hon. Friend has done. I believe that the two Members of the European Parliament were, at the very least, extremely, seriously and deliberately misled about the facts of the situation.
    Mr. Worthington: The Minister said earlier that local enterprise companies are publicly accountable. That is nonsense. They are secret, self-serving societies which are inward-turned and do not have to account at all.
    The Minister said that he was in favour of accountability. Performance tables and public reports have been imposed on other organisations. When will the Minister impose performance tables on local enterprise companies?
    Mr. Stewart: The performance of LECs is critical in the determination by Scottish Enterprise of their budgets for future years. That process is comprehensive and rigorous.

    Local Government Corruption
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce corruption in local government, in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: There are a number of forms of redress against corruption in local government, notably through the courts, the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland, the local government omudsman and the statutory powers available to my right hon. Friend. The Bill on local government reorganisation that my right hon. Friend intends to introduce will be an opportunity for consideration of the future framework within which local government operates.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend think that the events surrounding Monklands district council—council jobs provided to relatives of Labour councillors, the council leader's rather dubious business activities with his own council and the disastrous £1 million a year loss on the Quadrant shopping centre—result from corruption alone, or merely from a mixture of incompetence and corruption?
    Is my hon. Friend aware that the two Labour Members who represent that area have said nothing in the House
    320
    about the shenanigans? Is he also aware of the embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition who, at his recent constituency AGM, had to witness the expulsion of some of the Labour mafia who were involved? Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole situation—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a statement, but Question Time. The hon. Member has asked enough questions.
    Mr. Stewart: I should have thought that the major piece of embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition on that subject was when he was picketed outside his own constituency surgery by members of his own party. I do not think that that has ever happened to any other hon. Member.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members ought to guard their language in the House. As "Erskine May" indicates, moderate language is the cornerstone and the hallmark of our parliamentary debates. I will not take a point of order at this juncture. I will simply remind the House that this is a civilised debating Chamber. We should conduct ourselves accordingly.
    Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Government take seriously the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). The people of Scotland continue to be astonished by the silence from the two hon. Members who represent the Monklands area in the House.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Would not it be a most serious piece of corruption for Scottish local government to be carved up by the Government purely on the basis of the Government's political expediency? Will the Minister give an undertaking that no historic Scottish county will be carved up in the forthcoming review without the consent and support of the people in the area concerned?
    Mr. Stewart: I note that that is another example of Scottish Labour Members being prepared to discuss anything except Monklands.
    On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House earlier, the hon. Member will have to await the announcement that my right hon. Friend will make shortly.
    Mr. Dickens: Whenever we discuss the allegations about Monklands district council, is it not apparent that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) never reveals to the House that from 1975 he served as provost to Monklands district council?
    Mr. Stewart: To be fair to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), it is a matter of public record that he was provost to that council. He does not hide that. But he certainly hides his opinion about what has been happening in that district council since his tenure as provost.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Minister aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is busy promoting a policy of good governance throughout the world and that one of the principles involved is that the party in power should not seek to manipulate the constitutional or electoral rules to its advantage? Is the Minister aware that the Scottish

    321
    Office is in danger of being in breach of that policy if The Scotsman leak is anything to go by? Not since South Africa created Bophuthatswana out of 20 different bits of the map has there been such naked corruption.
    Mr. Connarty: Answer the question.
    Mr. Stewart: I am answering the question. I repudiate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Such language does his considerable reputation no good whatever. The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that when he sees and understands the details of the Government's proposals, he will be the first to withdraw his absurd allegations.

    Rents to Mortgages
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures on sales under the rents-to-mortgages scheme in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): As at the end of June, there had been 765 sales under the pilot rent-to-mortgage scheme operated by Scottish Homes.
    Mrs. Gorman: I am delighted at the growing success of that scheme in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that it just shows that the people in Scotland are great supporters of that fundamental Conservative policy, which is the antithesis of the policy of the Labour party, which has always opposed the sale of council houses? Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme was pioneered in my constituency, where we are joining in with the sales? Is he further aware that, following its success in Scotland, pioneered by the Conservatives, of course, the scheme will now be introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The scheme has been a great success. It will be an even greater success. It will create a wholly new market. My hon. Friend will be particularly interested to know that to date in Scotland 26·4 per cent. of council houses have been sold and that the figure for England is virtually identical-26·5 per cent. The rent-to-mortgage scheme will open up a whole new market. It will give a statutory right to those involved. I believe that that will be widely welcomed throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Maxton: Instead of continuing his obsession with selling as many houses as possible, will the Minister tell the House what progress he is making in establishing mortgage-to-rent schemes rather than rent-to-mortgage schemes to allow people who, as a result of the Government's economic policies have been made redundant and are unable to continue with their mortgage payments can continue to live in the house which has become their home?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have no objection to mortgage-to-rent schemes where the local authority considers that they are practicable and that there is a priority for them. In both Clackmannan and Kyle and Carrick such schemes are in operation. I am in favour of them if the district council considers that local circumstances demand them. In Scotland, some 257,000
    322
    houses have been built since 1979. That is a considerable number. The funding for housing in Scotland is substantial.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that at least in Gordon district in my constituency the council has been willing to adopt every conceivable means of providing homes to meet needs and has not argued with any of the various options on offer, yet it is still far from able to meet the demand for affordable houses in Gordon district? When will the Minister ensure that all the relevant agencies in Gordon can provide the houses that people need?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's constituency suffers from the problems associated with success and a growing population. I know that he has been in touch with Scottish Homes. It is investing millions of pounds in his constituency. That should be an on-going process. I hope that the strategic agreement, which I understand has been formed with the local council, or is about to be, will prove to be extremely successful. All possibilities should be explored.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister confirm that, by the end of 1992, 24,000 council houses had been sold and were not replaced with housing for rent? Does he further agree that, as it is the better housing that goes, council tenants will soon be left with nothing but tenements and multi-stories in which to live? Did not the Scottish Office once again grossly overestimate the sales of council houses, knowing full well that the supplementary allocations would not be enough and thus would result in less money being spent on making council houses fit to live in? Does not all that give a good idea of what tenants can expect if the Government's gerrymandered boundaries become a reality?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some 266,000 public sector houses have sold in Scotland. Each one of them has its own market value. They have sold throughout councils in Scotland. I can say also that the funds recovered have been spent on public sector housing in Scotland as a result and have greatly benefited the rest of the public sector housing. On supplementary allocations, we will not know the position until later this year. I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's constituency representations, and those from other constituencies in Scotland.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reassessment he has made of the Touche Ross report on local government reform.
    Mr. Lang: We have taken account of the wide range of comments received on the Touche Ross report on local government reform. I intend to include our revised estimates of costs and savings in, the White Paper setting out our local government reform proposals, which I hope to publish shortly.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give the House of Commons a clear, unambiguous assurance that no part of public expenditure in Scotland will be cut because of the transition costs of local government reform or its on-going costs? Do we have that clear assurance?
    Mr. Lang: The transition costs of local government reform will have to be borne from the resources available to the Scottish Office block. However, as the figures that I shall publish in the forthcoming White Paper will show, the cost of transition will be recovered quickly as a result of the savings to be had from single-tier all-purpose authorities.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that savings from local government reform will take place in a manner that will benefit the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom? Will he ensure that the incompetence and corruption of Monklands district council is squeezed dry by local government reform so that that council is in a better financial state and we stop the £1 million a year wasted on the Quadrant shopping centre development and the £3 million a year wasted on the leisure development, which is costing people in that area a considerable sum of money?
    Mr. Lang: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks. On the second part, when the Government bring forward proposals for reform, he will be able to judge for himself whether his anxieties are met.
    Mr. Hood: Has Touche Ross made any recommendations on the number of councillors who will be required under local government reform? When the Secretary of State presents his White Paper to the House, will it cover any recommendations on the number of councillors? Has that been addressed in the White Paper, and will we be able to discuss it?
    Mr. Lang: Touche Ross did not make recommendations on the number of local authority councillors, although in preparing its report, it had to make a number of assumptions across a broad range about the number of officials who would be involved in certain areas of local government expenditure. On the question whether that matter will be addressed in the Government's forthcoming White Paper, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to contain his soul in patience.
    Mr. Salmond: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's earlier remarks. He was extremely careful not to deny the accuracy of The Scotsman leak. Does he not think that the gerrymandering of Scottish local government boundary lines is too high a price to pay for keeping a blue rose on the lapel of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? Does he not understand that, with 16 per cent. of the vote for the Tory party, it is geometrically impossible to draw lines in a way that guarantees safe havens for his party? Does he think that a Secretary of State who has failed on Ravenscraig, Rosyth and the Euro-seats and who is now gerrymandering Scottish local government is fit to occupy that high office?
    Mr. Lang: I have already made it clear that the Government do not comment on allegedly leaked documents. Therefore, the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question falls.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As local authorities have a statutory requirement to advertise certain of their activities in the local newspapers, does the Secretary of State accept that he has failed in not taking action against
    324
    Monklands district council, which campaigned against the local newspaper, and instead is awaiting the outcome of the Touche Ross report?
    Mr. Lang: I have certain statutory powers, but they are limited. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given close consideration to the matter and I continue to keep a close watch on it.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Touche Ross figures to which he gave so much regard are fatally flawed and therefore make this whole exercise inappropriate? Will he accept that the House is sick and tired of his teasing at the Dispatch Box about when the White Paper is to be published? When will it be published? When will we know? Perhaps more importantly, will he accept that, given that this whole exercise is fatally flawed, he ought to do the decent thing, abandon it, and appoint an independent commission that can do justice to the whole of Scottish local government?
    Mr. Lang: The Touche Ross report is far from being flawed. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities co-operated in the preparation of that report and all the signs from subsequent work by consultants for other local authorities and from other submissions to the Government show that the broad trend of the Touche Ross report is accurate. That report made a certain number of assumptions, which it had to do in the context of the work that it was carrying out. More detailed submissions have led to some of those assumptions being refined further, but the broad trend of the report remains as it was. If anyone is discredited on the question of the cost of local government reform, it is the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We have not forgotten his belief, publicly stated without qualification, that the cost of local government reform would be £600 million. The hon. Gentleman is in for a shock, which for him will probably be a sad one.

    Scottish Enterprise
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish Enterprise to discuss employment prospects in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I meet frequently the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a wide range of issues, including economic prospects generally.
    Mr. Graham: The Minister will realise that government by the Tories in Scotland has cost nearly 200,000 manufacturing jobs. We have seen the threatened loss of roughly 1,000 jobs in Rosyth and 450 jobs are to be lost in my constituency in the royal ordnance factory. The Government are dillying and dandering while thousands of young people are not receiving appropriate training or apprenticeships. All that we have seen is the continual decline in manufacturing industries in Scotland. Is it not time that the Government gave us hope by resigning and allowing the people of Scotland to get back to work? I am sick and tired of seeing my folk facing the dole. Is it not time that the Government faced the dole?
    Mr. Stewart: Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is 2,421, which is a decline of almost 1,500 over the past five years. I should have thought that even

    325
    the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. As to manufacturing, I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman, and to the hon. Member for Fyfe, Central (Mr. McLeish) who is muttering on the Front Bench in his usual way, that manufactured exports from Scotland are, on the most recent figures, at a record level.
    Mr. Kynoch: Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) that the percentage of the working population in Scotland in work compared with others in the European Community is second in the league table? Is that not more positive information as opposed to the doom and gloom that Opposition Members are spreading?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Denmark is the only major European country with a better figure. Luxembourg, which of course is fairly small, also has a slightly better figure. Civilian employment in Scotland increased by 173,000 between March 1983 and March 1993. Those real figures reveal the nonsense of the constant doom and gloom from the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Wray: Will the Minister explain to the House the shocking state of affairs in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds? Since 1988, thousands more youngsters have become unemployed and out of training as a result of the Government's very unpopular policy of taking benefits away from those kids. Will the Government consider restoring benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds? Will the Minister also consider the discriminatory age-related benefit for 18 to 24-year-olds who do not get paid the same as 25-year-olds and who actually receive £8·55 less? Will the Minister agree to abolish that?
    Mr. Stewart: This Government have brought in a guarantee for youth training which is being fully met. That guarantee is available in no other European country. That is the reality and it shows the Government's commitment to ensuring that young people acquire the skills and have the training for the jobs of the future.

    Bilateral Trade
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet trade Ministers from overseas to discuss bilateral trade with businesses in the far east.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I meet trade Ministers from the far east from time to time. Most recently my right hon. Friend has met the Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and a delegation of Taiwanese business men.
    I propose to visit Japan and South Korea in the autumn.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does the Scottish Office intend to target particular territories? My right hon. Friend has already mentioned South Korea and Japan. Does he also intend to target growing territories such as Hong Kong and Singapore?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we are indeed keen to do that. Our targeting has been extremely successful. In the last year for which figures are known, exports to Japan rose by 10 per cent., to Hong Kong by one quarter and to Singapore by one third.
    326
    Exports to South Korea have almost doubled. If the reports from Japan this afternoon are correct and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has secured from the Japanese Government dramatic tariff reductions on imported goods, that will be excellent news for Scottish industry.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Secretary of State aware that the oil fabrication industry in Scotland faces increasing competition from south-east Asia yards and particularly from South Korean yards? British Petroleum has already awarded a major order covering the Forth field to a South Korean yard and Phillips is considering giving out another major order. Is the Secretary of State just going to leave that kind of situation to the free play of market forces? Does not he believe that it is the responsibility of the Government, and particularly of the Scottish Office, to ensure that the Scottish fabrication industry can compete effectively with South Korean yards? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted his Energy colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry in an attempt to ensure that such orders continue to go to yards in Scotland and yards in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lang: I certainly understand the importance of those yards to the economies of the areas where they are located. However, there can be no question of protecting manufacturing industry in this country from the competitive forces that blow around the world. The only way in which those yards can secure long-lasting employment and security is by being competitive and able to compete and beat the worldwide competition. It is increasingly encouraging that Scottish industry, because it has modernised and because it has invested in new technology, is now competitive and is beating off competition from around the world. Our export orders show the success that we are achieving.

    Unemployment
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent total of long-term unemployed people in Scotland; what plans he has to reduce this number; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stewart: In April 1993, there were 86,591 people in Scotland who had been unemployed for 12 months or longer. That represents a rate of increase since April 1992 of about one third of that for Great Britain as a whole. More help than ever before is now available to long-term unemployed people in their efforts to return to work.
    Mr. Marshall: Has the Minister absolutely no shame or anger at the tragic figures which, in the case of Glasgow, account for almost one in two of the unemployed? Does he not realise that many long-term unemployed have never had a job since they left school and may never obtain one? Does he not realise that we now have a second generation of long-term unemployed and that those scandalous figures are the biggest blight on the face of Scottish society today? Instead of cutting funding and training, when will the Government tackle that problem with the priority, urgency and resources that it so desperately requires?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware of the measures that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) in the Budget. The hon. Gentleman might have

    327
    mentioned that, in his own constituency, for example, the number of unemployed has dropped over the past five years from 6,968 to 4,723—a very substantial drop indeed. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the long-term unemployed are a priority. Two out of three unemployed people go off the register within six months —they go back into the labour market. The Government have brought in a package of new measures such as learning for work, the local enterprise company challenge, the expansion of business start-ups and community action, all of which are directed specifically to help the problem of the long-term unemployed. Frankly, it does neither the long-term unemployed nor anyone else any good when Opposition Members do not recognise that the Government are tackling the problem and are devoting considerable resources to it.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge the specific and persistent difficulty of long-term unemployment in the highlands and islands? After the exchange that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) had with the Secretary of State, will the Minister bear in mind the great concern that was expressed at a meeting earlier this week of Ross and Cromarty district council about the downturn in the fabrication sector, for example Highlands Fabricators at Nigg and McDermotts at Ardersler, and the huge impact that that is having on the region's economy in terms of the massive increase in unemployment? Would the Minister be willing later in the year to meet representatives of the various public agencies from the area to discuss difficulties that are becoming deeper by the week?
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for the highlands and islands are always willing to meet, as appropriate, representatives of the agencies concerned. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Government on achieving objective 1 status for the highlands and islands. The whole House will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on a great achievement for the highlands area.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Is the Minister not ashamed that some of those who are now categorised as long-term unemployed are 16 and 17-year-olds who, despite his claims, have not had a job since they left school? Six days after the Budget, Youth Aid advised the Government that 124,700 young people did not have a job or a training place and that 78 per cent. of them had no money. When will the Minister get his backside off his seat and do something about the real problem for young people in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: Not all young people want a training place. [Interruption.] They may or may not want a training place. We hope that they do. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are training places available for all young people who wish to have training places. Indeed, that is why we improved the quality of the training guarantee by setting time limits within which young people would be guaranteed to receive the offer of a place.

    "Investing for Our Future"
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the submissions he received to the Scottish Office consultation paper "Investing for our Future" favoured a system of franchising; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Hector Monro: An analysis of responses to the consultation paper will be made available once a decision on the future structure of water and sewerage services is announced.
    Mr. Welsh: The majority of Scots, including leading Conservatives, are totally opposed to any form of water privatisation. It is strange that not one Scottish Minister has defended any privatisation policy in Scotland. Will the privatisation of water simply be bundled in with equally unacceptable gerrymandering and destruction of Scotland's local government system? Will there be separate announcements or will the Minister simply present a single large insult to the Scottish people?
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see and contain himself for a few days, or even a week or two longer. He is a glutton for punishment on water. Month by month, he asked questions about water at the same time as his party and his leader made totally irresponsible statements aboout civil disobedience relative to water, and he' should be ashamed of himself.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly anxious to find out about the number of submissions to make a political point. Will my hon. Friend share with the House the number of submissions that he has received that support the option of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), which is for wilful acts of sabotage and violence throughout Scotland?
    Sir Hector Monro: I have not had one letter supporting violence, so the SNP is on its own.
    Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister return to the original question and tell the House how many submissions he has received?
    Sir Hector Monro: As I indicated in my original answer, once all the submissions have been analysed and the announcement has been made, they will be available in the Library.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister aware that top water analyst Robert Miller-Bakewell of Natwest Securities is advising his corporate clients that they can buy franchises in Scottish Water in early 1995? Is it not a scandal that financiers in the City are informed of these matters before either Parliament or the people concerned? Will he confirm that up to 20 per cent. of jobs will go; that 10 English companies, three Spanish companies and one American company will bid and that—[Interruption.] The Minister may not like what is being said but it is factual.
    Will the Minister confirm that the Government have selected four business units as the model for reform? Is it not contempt of the House for the Government to behave in such a way? Can we have an apology for the mess that has been created? Will the Minister say when a statement will be made in the House?
    Sir Hector Monro: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to apologise to Conservative Members for the irresponsible statements that he has made recently and a mass of statistics that mean nothing at all. I am not especially interested in the report from Natwest Securities. We will wait and see what happens when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announces what we intend to do.

    Industry
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss Scottish industry.
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on a range of matters concerning Scottish industry. We look forward to a continuing exchange of views.
    Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister arrange a meeting with the STUC on the future of the coal industry in Scotland if and when privatisation takes place? The Scots are worried —I am sure that the country is also worried—that the premature closure of Frances colliery, with the potential loss of 1,000 jobs, is in the offing. I hope that the Minister will support that and the future of Monktonhall colliery in my constituency. Will he give a guarantee that such a meeting will take place and that the whole of the Scottish coalfield will be sold to a consortium of the people whom I represent?
    Mr. Stewart: The whole House knows the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and expertise of the industry. He led a delegation to discuss proposals for a separate Scottish coalfield. I can certainly give him an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I, in addition to my hon. Friend the Minister
    330
    for Energy, who has direct responsibility for these matters, will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others concerned to discuss the future.
    So far as Frances colliery is concerned, it continues on a care and maintenance basis by British Coal at a cost to British Coal of £2 million per annum. The hon. Gentleman will know that consultations on the future of Frances are continuing between British Coal and the mining unions at present. If the option to offer the mine to the private sector is pursued, Frances will be advertised in due course and interest sought from independent mine operators.

    Voluntary Organisations
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of grants to voluntary organisations from his Department in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for 1978–79 at constant prices.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Grants paid to voluntary organisations by the Scottish Office in 1992–93 totalled £25·7 million compared with £11·9 million in 1978–79 at constant prices. That represents an increase of 116 per cent. in real terms.
    Sir David Knox: That is an impressive increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a cost-effective form of public expenditure and that it should be increased wherever appropriate?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely cost effective. We see voluntary organisations as an important third force co-operating with the Government in delivering a broad spectrum of services.
    The House will expect me to congratulate my hon. Friend on his knighthood. He has been destined for distinction ever since he became chairman of the West Edinburgh Young Conservatives.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is with regret that I raise this serious point of order with you. It involves the hon. Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) as well as a Minister of the Crown, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).
At a succession of Scottish Question Times, matters have been raised concerning Monklands district council. They have been raised mainly by the hon. Member for Dover, whom we can disregard because he is held in contempt on both sides of the House.
Hon. Members:
Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must not paint a picturesque story. He must come to his point of order, with which I can then deal.
Mr. Hogg: I would find it difficult to paint a picturesque story about the hon. Member for Dover.
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now come to the point of order that he is putting to me, as Speaker of this House?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Dover and, this afternoon, the hon. Member for Colne Valley have made allegations of corruption against an individual in Monklands district council and against that authority. When the matter was initially raised by the hon. Member for Dover, the Secretary of State answered in general terms, saying that he had powers in statute permitting him to pursue any corruption that arose in any Scottish local authority.
This afternoon, that unsubstantiated allegation was used in an attempted smear against my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Conservative Back Benchers have made a deliberate and contemptible attempt to implicate them in an alleged corruption. As the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office have not identified that corruption or acted on their statutory powers, it is obvious that that corruption does not exist. If it exists, the Secretary of State must act on it. Instead, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood, joined in that smearing ploy and behaved in a fashion that is inconsistent with what the Scottish people expect of a Minister.
If allegations of corruption are to be made in this House, and if attempts are to be made to smear a Privy Councillor—the Leader of the Opposition—and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, we are entitled to believe that those matters will be properly looked into. However, if the Secretary of State will not do that—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. George Galloway: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Galloway: Yes, Madam Speaker. It deals with the associated question on the Order Paper tabled by the hon. Member for Colne Valley in which he explicitly uses the words
"corruption in local government in Scotland"
In the House—on the Order Paper—I too have accused someone of being corrupt. That was the late Robert Maxwell—I was ahead of the pack in doing so before he died—and he was indeed corrupt, as the world now knows. The difference is—[Hots. MEMBERS: "Did you receive any of his money?"] No, I never received any of his money.
The difference is that I was ready to, and did, repeat my allegations outside the privilege of the House. The record will show in the morning that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) referred to "dubious business deals" with his own council by the leader of the Monklands district authority—whom I do not know and have never met.
I do know, however, that that person is currently involved in litigation against at least one newspaper, which also made that allegation. The matter is sub judice, yet the allegation was casually repeated by the hon. Member for Colne Valley, both on the Order Paper and in his question.
There must be a role for you, Madam Speaker, in preventing Scottish Question Time from being used as a subterfuge to smear leading Members of the House of Commons and elected local authority members—against whom, as far as I know, the police have raised no complaint, and whose activities are not the subject of any legal action by the authorities who have the power to prosecute in the case of any impropriety. For a Minister to the Crown to be associated today, for the first time, with that smear is an absolute scandal, a disgrace and an abuse of the privileges of the House.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Pay your debts.
Mr. Riddick: Have you passed your driving test yet?
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) accused me of accusing the Leader of the Opposition of corruption—[Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did; the Official Report will show that.
I must make it clear that not once in my question did I accuse the Leader of the Opposition of corruption. I did, however, express a desire for him to make some comment about the corruption that has taken place in Monklands district council.
Mr. Michael J. Martin rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order relate to this matter? I think that I can now deal with it. We have heard enough points of order; we are all aware of the problem.
Mr. Martin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I am a regular attender at Scottish Question Time.
Madam Speaker: So am I.
Mr. Martin: I regularly hear, particularly from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), accusations concerning a local authority. Many of the people in that local authority are decent. hard-working people who do not have an opportunity to reply to allegations made in the House.

333
Would it not be better, and bring matters to a head, if you, Madam Speaker, were to advise the hon. Member for Dover to repeat the accusations outside the House? That would give the people of Monklands an opportunity to take the hon. Gentleman through the due legal process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough, and I think I can deal with the matter. As the House knows, I rule out of order at the time anything I hear that is out of order. I heard nothing that was out of order during Question Time, otherwise I would have taken action. I do, however, caution hon. Members that moderation is a characteristic of parliamentary language, and I must confess that I have not heard much moderation this afternoon. I ask all hon. Members to remember in future what "Erskine May" says about good temper and moderation being the characteristics of parliamentary language.
The sub judice rule, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), applies only if a case has been set down for hearing. I do not think that that has happened in this case.
We are now in July, and I remind all hon. Members that moderation and tolerance are what we require.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Scottish Question Time today was dominated by two topics: the reform of local government in Scotland, and water privatisation. When we asked questions about local government reform we were told to wait and see. Over a week ago there was a leak to a Scottish newspaper and the story has been running in Scotland for that time. When we asked questions about water privatisation we were also told to wait to see, but a NatWest securities publication suggests that there has been another leak from the Scottish Office.
Will you, Madam Speaker, rule on the increasingly common Scottish Office practice of making statements outside the House and not having the courtesy to -make them in the House? It is treating the House with contempt.
Madam Speaker: The entire House knows that I feel that when any Department has a statement to make on a change of policy the House should be told in the first place.

BILL PRESENTED
  YOUTH SERVICES
  Mr. Tony Lloyd, supported by Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Don Foster. Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mrs. Jane Kennedy, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to youth services in the community and participation by youth in community development; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 29 October 1993, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]

  Right to Silence (Amendment)
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Michael Bates: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow judges, magistrates and juries to draw an inference from a suspect's exercise of the right to silence.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to present a Bill that would allow magistrates, judges and juries to draw an inference from a defendant's use of the right to silence. In ordinary life the way in which a person responds to an allegation made against him may be indicative of his guilt or innocence. In a criminal trial the situation is artificial since the right to silence means that an accused person need not respond at all, either when asked questions by the police or at his trial, and no adverse conclusion is allowed to be drawn from his silence. Is it not a mistake to have evolved a system in which too often the advice from the solicitor when he arrives, albeit quite properly given, can be to say nothing at all?
  Jeremy Bentham put it succinctly when he wrote:
  "If all criminals of every class had assembled and framed a system after their own wishes, is not this the first rule which they would have established for their security? Innocence never takes advantage of it: innocence claims the right of speaking, as guilt invokes the privilege of silence".
  It is worth noting that Jeremy Bentham wrote those words in the 18th century, before the advent of legal aid, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and a succession of Criminal Justice Acts which, however well meaning, in the eyes of many have weighted the scales of justice in favour of the defence.
  This has been brought about by honest attempts to avoid certain well publicised miscarriages of justice. The balance should be restored and we should recognise that a guilty man walking free from a court is just as serious a miscarriage of justice as an innocent man being found guilty. In my view, the numbers of the former are greatly exceeded by the instances of the latter.
  However strong my wish to go some way to restoring this balance through the Bill, I would not wish to move away from the central principle that the prosecution must prove its case and that it is not for the accused to prove his innocence. No man or woman should be forced to speak and nor should silence per se be treated as evidence of guilt. However, the Bill would provide for silence to be treated as corroborative evidence pointing to guilt.
  I make no apology for saying that the Bill is primarily designed to free the hands of our police, men and women, as they go into battle on our behalf against a small number of hardened and habitual criminals who know how to work the system. If suspects can avoid having to explain themselves, it is not too difficult to see why over-zealous police officers might be tempted from time to time to invent evidence against someone who they believe is guilty or to place undue pressure to extract a confession which, of course, is admissible evidence at a trial.
  The police service is charged with responsibility for investigating offences. In recent years, society has rightly placed increasing demands on the standards that it expects of our police in their detection of crime and in the bringing of safe and successful prosecutions. However, we have overlooked the fact that, if their duty is to investigate effectively, the police need to try to establish exactly what did or did not happen in the situation that led to the suspect's arrest.

  335
  It is the view of many of our best police officers, such as Detective Sergeant Cole and Detective Constable Goodwill, who are based at Saltburn in my constituency and whose comments on the frustrations they have experienced on the front line of the battle against crime first inspired me to bring forward the Bill, that a significant number of suspects, by refusing to answer questions, seriously impede the efforts of the investigators to fulfil their function of establishing the facts of the case and, as a result, greatly increase the chances of miscarriages of justice.
  It is also correct that there should be safeguards for suspects so that they are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities. First and foremost, I suggest that the caution should be amended to read, "Do you wish to make. any explanation or answer? If you do not say anything, your failure to do so may be held against you at your trial. Anything you do say will be recorded immediately." That caution will he used in conjunction with the already extensive provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which might be extended still further to allow suspects who are emotionally upset the opportunity to postpone an interview. Suspects may already ask for a second interview if they wish to react or modify anything said earlier.
  Access to free legal advice is in itself a valuable safeguard, as is the requirement that investigative interviews be recorded under controlled conditions. It could be extended still further by the requirement that all interviews should be video recorded.
  Any change in our system would require the development of careful rules as to the guidance the judge should give the jury, as is currently provided for in Northern Ireland where we have already given the court the right to draw inferences from a defendant's use of the right to silence in certain circumstances.
  Before people get too carried away with the protection of the right to silence, we should recall that not only do the provisions of the Bill already exist and work well in one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—but the duty to disclose information and answer questions to bodies such as the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise has already been imposed by statute.
  The Financial. Services Act 1987 and the Companies Act 1985 give inspectors the power to compel a defendant to answer their questions, with failure to answer leading to a prosecution and resulting in up to six months' imprisonment. That such powers are at the disposal of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in economic crimes such as insolvency, bankruptcy and liquidations yet far lesser powers are denied the police investigating crimes such as murder and rape is surely a gaping hypocrisy.
  In preparing the Bill for presentation before the House, I hoped that its purpose would be simply to endorse the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. However, it was disappointing that, in a generally encouraging report, the Royal Commission felt able to go only halfway on this vital issue, proposing that a jury should be able to draw an inference from a defendant's use of the right to silence during trial, yet not when being interviewed at a police station.
  As a result, the hard core of criminals who are wreaking havoc in our society and who know how to work the
  336
  system to their advantage remain free to abuse the right to silence. Therefore, the need for the Bill is greater than ever before, and I commend it to the House.
  3.48 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I rise to oppose the Bill. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) decided to go ahead with it, given the clear guidance from the Royal Commission yesterday which saw no case for changing the law on the right to silence in pre-trial procedures.
  The House should remember why the Royal Commission was set up. The first argument was alarm at a small number of serious miscarriages of justice and the failure of senior judges and police officers to address the problems. History will recall that a small group of lawyers, judges and senior police officers, by repeated attempts to cover up miscarriages of justice, caused major problems for the legal system, doing the police a great disservice.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise a judge?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Member is speaking very generally.
  Mr. Bennett: I am well aware that, if I wanted to criticise a judge by name, I would have to do it by motion. I can assure the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that, as has just been shown, as long as I refer simply to judges, I am perfectly in order. I stress that that small group of people did the criminal justice system in this country a great disservice.
  The second reason for the inquiry was the rising tide of crime. It is clear that when the Royal Commission was taking evidence, a small group of people, possibly some of those who had brought the system into disrepute, together with the Director of Public Prosecutions and one or two others, set about trying to change the agenda from the rising level of crime and the miscarriages of justice.
  They were trying to suggest that there is a different problem in this country, and that we should be concerned not about the 200 or 300 people who may wrongly be in prison, but that emphasis should be placed on the idea that there were many guilty people who walk free from the courts. In fact, there is no evidence for that. The real problem is that the majority of guilty people are never brought before the courts. That is the most important point that we should address.
  The idea that we should remove the right to trial by jury, introduce proposals for plea bargaining and end the right to silence is extremely damaging. I am sorry that the Royal Commission went any way towards that. We should get back firmly to the basic principle that the right to silence has been an important part of the British legal system for many years. That principle was fought for by people such as John Lilhurn, a leveller, back in the Stuart period. With the abolition of the star chamber court, it was beginning to be enshrined in British law by about 1641 and was finally enshrined in English law in 1848. We should be proud of the right to silence and we should protect it.
  The problem is that, in recent years, the emphasis has been to encourage the police to spend all their time questioning suspects and nothing like as much time trying to catch people, especially trying to catch them

  337
  red-handed. The emphasis has been on questioning, and not on trying to obtain collaborative evidence. That is extremely worrying.
  The problems of questioning are well illustrated in the House every day at Question Time. One builds up frustration and confrontation is created. The more we encourage the police to emphasise questioning, the more likely we are to produce miscarriages of justice. People are persuaded that they must answer and that can be dangerous. Ministers at the Dispatch Box do not have a right to silence. but they appear to exercise the right not to answer the questions and Opposition Members get more and more angry.
  It is important that we try to get away from the pressure to produce confessions and that we accept that, sadly, if there is too much pressure, we get false confessions. Police officers say that if innocent people have not committed a crime, they have nothing to hide, so why should they not answer questions? We are all aware that on many occasions people do not want to answer questions, not because they have committed a crime, but because it may be embarrassing to someone else to reveal exactly what they were doing. That may not be particularly honest, but it is not criminal. So we should not force people to have to disclose to a police officer what they were doing when they may have been doing something perfectly innocent.
  We know that if we put pressure on people to say what they were doing, they assume that they have to answer. If hon. Members think back to what they were doing a week or a fortnight ago, they will remember some things very accurately. However, on many occasions they will not be able to remember accurately and the correct answer to give to a police officer is, "I cannot remember what I was doing." If the prosecution is allowed to draw an inference from the fact that someone's memory is not good, that will count against the accused person just as much as if he had committed a misdemeanour. A good officer knows that if someone says, "I cannot remember," it may be a much more truthful answer than that of someone who can slickly describe exactly what he was doing.
  The Bill would be extremely damaging. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh suggested that we should be very concerned about guilty people being acquitted. I agree. But I do not put that on a par with the conviction of innocent people, which is a double offence because an innocent person has been convicted but the guilty person has gone free.
  We should not narrow the rights of the individual but should ensure that more criminals are caught. I appeal to the House to throw out the Bill at this early stage and to make it quite clear that we want to keep the constitutional right to silence.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
  The House divided: Ayes, 68, Noes 121.

  Division No. 322]

  [3.55 pm

  AYES

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butcher, John

  Alton, David

  Butterfill, John

  Bates, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Couchman, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dicks, Terry

  338

  Dover, Den

  Mills, Iain

  Duncan, Alan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Faber, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Fabricant, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Fry, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Gallie, Phil

  Sims, Roger

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Gill, Christopher

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Gorst, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Spring, Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Stern, Michael

  Harris, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Heald, Oliver

  Thomason, Roy

  Hendry, Charles

  Trimble, David

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norfolk)

  Watts, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Whittingdale, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Mr. Michael Stephen and Mr. James Clappison.

  Lidington, David

  Maginnis, Ken

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Hoyle, Doug

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ashton, Joe

  Hutton, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Illsley, Eric

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Janner, Greville

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Burden, Richard

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Byers, Stephen

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Caborn, Richard

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Callaghan, Jim

  Keen, Alan

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clapham, Michael

  Leighton, Ron

  Coffey, Ann

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lewis, Terry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cryer, Bob

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Davidson, Ian

  McCartney, Ian

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Macdonald, Calum

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Enright, Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Etherington, Bill

  McNamara, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McWilliam, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Madden, Max

  Flynn, Paul

  Mahon, Alice

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Galloway, George

  Maxton, John

  Garrett, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Meale, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Graham, Thomas

  Milburn, Alan

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Miller, Andrew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gunnell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hall, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Hanson, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Heppell, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  339

  Purchase, Ken

  Stott, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Turner, Dennis

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wallace, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winnick, David

  Short, Clare

  Wise, Audrey

  Simpson, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  Spellar, John

  Steel. Rt Hon Sir David

  Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 6 July]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 2

  INITIAL DRAWING UP OF THE. NEW CONSTITUENCIES
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 24, at end add—
  '(7) The Committees shall have regard to Paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act before determining their final report to the Secretary of State.'
  This amendment concerns the issue of a public inquiry as part of the process of redrawing the European parliamentary boundaries. On Second Reading the major concern on both sides of the House was the absence of a proper time or mechanism for a public inquiry. Public inquiries, as we know, are the usual procedure when redrawing either the Westminster or the European boundaries. The purpose of the amendment is to raise the subject of the power to hold an inquiry. The means may be open to debate, but the amendment promotes discussion as to whether there should he, and whether it is feasible to have, a time for proper public inquiries.
  The other cause for concern on Second Reading was that a special committee would redraw the boundaries, rather than the Boundary Commission. The Government, however, moved a considerable way to allay fears about the nature of the committee. They have undertaken to appoint boundary commissioners where possible, or, if they are appointing new people to serve on the special committee to draw up the boundaries, to appoint committee members on the same terms, and after similar consultation with other parties, as boundary commis-sioners.
  The Government have also undertaken that the committee should have the same secretariat and staff as the Boundary Commission and that its independence should be guaranteed. So, as the Minister said when replying to the Second Reading debate, it will be the Boundary Commission in all but name.
  One objection has been catered for, but the powers of the committee will still not include the power to hold a proper public inquiry. The history of the matter is as follows. In December 1978, the first boundaries were drawn up for direct European parliamentary elections. It is true that there was no inquiry then; that was the only other time when there has been no timetable for a public inquiry when parliamentary boundaries have been redrawn. However, exceptional circumstances gave rise to that exceptional state of affairs.
  First, the process necessarily had to be carried out at the last minute because there had been tremendous disagreement in the House, and the procedure and the timetable came at the end of what I understand was an acrimonious debate about whether there should be direct elections to the European Parliament at all. Secondly, at that time all the boundaries had to be drawn for the first

  341
  time. We were dealing not with six additional seats. as we are here, but with all the European seats, for which boundary inquires would have had to be held. Everything was being done for the first time, so the administrative and procedural difficulties were necessarily all the greater.
  Thirdly, the European Parliament had less power then than now—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary does not seem to consider that a matter of consequence, but I think that it is. The more power the European Parliament has the more important it is to maintain a proper procedure for drawing up the boundaries. Finally, the Home Secretary of the day gave a firm promise that the process that had excluded the possibility of holding public inquiries would never happen again.
  Now let us move forward to March 1984, when the boundaries were changed again before the June 1984 elections. Many more boundaries were altered then than must be altered now. Having done some research on the subject, I can say that even though the timetable was held back until March 1984, about 10 inquiries were held, nine in England and one in Wales, as I understand—perhaps the Home Secretary will comment on that later. Although the timetable are pressing, 10 inquiries were still held, and I understand that 10 is about the maximum number that would have to be held now.
  I agree that it was unsatisfactory that the process had to wait until March 1984, but at least it was proved then that such a time scale is not entirely impossible, and we are now considering a more favourable time scale. I also point out to the Home Secretary that, at the conclusion of the process in March 1984, about half the boundaries that had been the subject of a public inquiry were changed, so the inquiries made a difference to the outcome.
  Furthermore, moving to the other part of the history of the matter, it is right to say that the timetable is so pressing now only because of the delay in introducing the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, the moment that it was announced following the European summit that six extra seats were to be allocated, we immediately asked the Home Secretary of the day what the procedure for drawing the boundaries would be.
  The question was constantly raised from that time onwards, yet the Government are now relying on their own delay as a reason for defeating what would otherwise be the normal process for drawing the boundaries. That delay has stretched over many more months than was necessary. Therefore, if there is any possibility of securing sufficient time for a public inquiry to be held, the onus is all the heavier on the Government to try to achieve that.
  Of course, the present Home Secretary was not responsible for the delay and I understand his problem. As, by the means that I have already explained, he has guaranteed the independence of the Boundary Commission, I do not challenge his good faith; I assume that he genuinely believes that public inquiries cannot be held in the time available. However, I do not think that the House would consider it right merely to accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion that the timetable does not allow for public inquiries. Rightly, people would like that proposition to be tested and shown to be right before accepting it.
  In normal circumstances, as I believe that the Home Secretary concedes, public inquiries should and would be held. Therefore, only if he can show that the circumstances are wholly exceptional and exclude the practical possibility of a public inquiry will he have proved that one should not
  342
  be held. To test the assertion that that is not a feasible proposition, we must compare the differing time scales that have been drawn up by the Home Office and by the Opposition. It is worth explaining how those time differences occur so that we can test whether it is feasible to have a public inquiry in the way in which we suggest.
  4.15 pm
  In essence, the Home Office time scale says that, in the event of a public inquiry, the process of boundary redistribution could not be completed until the end of January—earlier than March 1994, but I accept that it would be wholly exceptional to go that far. Using the Opposition time scale, including a public inquiry, the process would end in mid-December. In effect, there is a seven-week difference between the Home Office calculation and the Opposition calculation. I shall explain where that seven-week difference arises.
  The timetables of the Home Office and the Opposition are the same up to week five of the process of boundary redistribution—up to the publication in early August of the provisional recommendations. In normal circumstances, there is then a statutory requirement to provide at least four weeks for representations and objections to be made. However, that period falls during the summer, so it is not unreasonable to allow a longer time for representations to be heard; so we have allowed six weeks, whereas the Home Office has allowed seven.
  I cannot see why six weeks is not enough. On our time scale, the final date for representations would stretch well into late September and I cannot see why that is too onerous a burden to carry. I must stress throughout that the final time scale adopted would be agreed by all parties. Therefore, it would ill behove parties making representations to complain that they had not had enough time. That area is where the Opposition proposal loses one week.
  Both the Home Office and the Opposition allow one week to consider representations, so the time scales match on that issue. Depending on the representations received, if the trigger of 500 protesting electors occurs, a public inquiry should be held. The decision to call a public inquiry depends on the representations, so when the committee meets to consider and decide on the representations, it will then be in a position to know whether to hold a public inquiry or not.
  The Opposition time scale allows a further week for the committee to complete the administrative process of issuing the notice of the inquiry, but the Home Office allows two weeks. Again, there is one week's difference between the time scales suggested. I cannot understand why, when it is decided that an inquiry is needed, it cannot be called straight away.
  The main gap occurs in the notice given for the public inquiry. We allow four weeks and the Government allow six weeks. I cannot understand for the life of me why that notice cannot be given in four weeks. Four weeks' notice of a public inquiry seems to be easily long enough and I cannot believe that, for the sake of an extra two weeks, it is worth jeopardising the whole process of a public inquiry. If all parties agree that that is a fair and reasonable notice of time, it seems to be fair enough. I agree, however, that for Westminster seats, the period of notice is normally six weeks, not four, but in the exceptional circumstances of this case, it would not be unreasonable if we were all to agree that it should be four weeks rather than six.

  343
  That leaves a four-week gap between the Home Office and Opposition time scales. If the process is completed one month later on the Home Office scale, it will go beyond Christmas, taking an additional three weeks, making seven weeks in all.
  I appreciate that the details are difficult to follow. However, I have been through the matter carefully and genuinely to see whether our time scale was so unreasonable that it would mean that public inquiries were impossible. I am totally convinced that the time scale is possible if we decide that it is necessary. If, as I believe, public inquiries are an important part of the process and make a difference, if it can be done, it should be done, and I believe that I have shown by our time scale that it could be done.
  One final objection is then given. It is said, not unreasonably, that there might be an unforeseen event affecting the holding of the public inquiry. The commissioner might fall ill or the council building in which the inquiry was to be held might become unavailable. There could be all sorts of reasons why, in the particular case of a particular inquiry, it became impossible to meet the timetable. As I understand it, of the 10 inquiries in 1984, not one was postponed.
  However, let us assume for the purposes of argument that postponement was possible due to an unforeseen event. Even on our time scale, that could be allowed for. By early December, we have completed the process, so it allows an extra couple of weeks to run up to the Christmas period. Let us suppose that one or two inquiries went into January. I cannot believe that that is of such massive importance to the ability to fight the European elections effectively that it justifies vitiating the entire exercise of public inquiries for all the seats.
  I do not overstate the case because I do not accuse the Home Secretary of malice. I simply say that the Home Office has been obstinate. I do not believe that under the proposed time scale it would be impossible to fulfil the requirement for a public inquiry. The amendment is phrased in general terms. We say that we should simply "have regard" to the paragraph in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 which allows for a public inquiry.
  I do not stand by the precise terms of a detailed amendment. However, I do say that we should uphold the principle that public inquiries are an integral part of redrawing constituency boundaries, either for Westminster or for the European Parliament. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that we should accept that public inquiries should be excluded. The onus is on the Home Office to show that public inquiries should be excluded. It has failed to do so and in the absence of its ability to convince us that public inquiries are unnecessary, the House should support the amendment and should make the Home Office face up to its responsibilities.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I rise at this early stage in the debate to make clear the Government's position on the matter. The amendment seeks to draw the constituency committees' attention to the requirements of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 concerning the holding of public inquiries.
  As I explained to the House on Second Reading, I want the committees to follow as closely as possible the procedures of the Boundary Commissions. That is why, as
  344
  the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) conceded, we have sought—and, I hope, will largely succeed—in terms of the composition of the committees for which provision is made in the Bill, to appoint boundary commissioners where it is possible and where it is not, to follow procedures that mirror closely those that we should follow if we were appointing boundary commissioners.
  I share with the Committee the latest information on the issue because it demonstrates the extent to which we are serious in our desire to follow those procedures wherever we can. Both the Boundary Commission members for Wales have agreed to take on the task and to serve on the committee for Wales. Although at present no deputy chairman has been appointed for the Welsh Boundary Commission, a nominee has now been agreed with the leaders of the parties.
  I expect my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to make an announcement on the matter shortly. The judge who has been nominated has agreed to he chairman of the committee. I expect the position in Wales to be that all three members of the committee will be members of the Boundary Commission for Wales.
  For England, progress has not been quite as satisfactory. The deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission for England is too committed to other duties to take on the task. One of the other members has said to me that he is willing to take part as long as the review is completed by Christmas. The other member is willing in principle, but wants to know more about what is involved and especially about the outcome of our deliberations today before making a firm commitment.
  We will be making progress in England also. I hope and expect to appoint at least one member of the Boundary Commission for England, and perferably two, as members of the committee. But that, as will be apparent from what I have said, depends on the outcome of our deliberations today. If the Government were obliged, as a result of the Committee's deliberations, to hold a public inquiry, at least one and possibly two members of the Boundary Commission for England would be unable to become members of the committee.
  I have dealt with the composition of the committees and I have demonstrated the Government's desire to follow the procedures of the Boundary Commission as closely as possible. I should like to adopt procedures that would mirror those of the Boundary Commission in other respects.
  The one respect in which I feel obliged to ask the committees to depart from those procedures is the holding of public inquiries. There will still be a full opportunity for individuals to make their views known to the committees, and for those views to be taken fully into account. There will be a full opportunity for the committees to modify their original recommendations and proposals in the light of those views.
  However, one element of the Boundary Commissions' normal procedures that would be absent would be the holding of public inquiries. The reason for that absence is simply that I do not believe that we could guarantee that the procedures would be concluded in the time available if public inquiries were held.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is it correct that, once a public inquiry has begun, it is entirely up to that inquiry how long it continues to hear evidence and deliberate? Am

  345
  I right in saying that there is an open-ended commitment once an inquiry has been set up, or is there some way of limiting the length of the inquiry?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has asked a question which goes to the heart of the matter. In a very real sense, a public inquiry is an open-ended process. Of course, the chairman of the inquiry has a certain limited discretion to rule repetitious representations out of order. But there is no limit to the ingenuity—I know from my experience in such matters—with which those who are determined to make representations to public inquiries frame them in a way that differs to some extent from similar representations that may have been heard earlier in that inquiry.
  It is difficult and, in the end, impossible to put a time limit on a public inquiry. My hon. Friend is right to say that a public inquiry is an open-ended process.
  Mr. Blair: I am sure that the Home Secretary would not wish unduly to build up the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us of any individual inquiries that have lasted more than one or two weeks?
  Mr. Howard: It is commonly known that public inquiries—although not necessarily in the subject that we are discussing—that were expected to last for a matter of days have frequently lasted for a matter of months. The same procedure could apply in the matters that we are discussing.
  If the hon. Member for Sedgefield suggests that we can totally exclude the possibility of something happening in the future because it has not happened in precisely that way in the past, that seems to be an eccentric way of dealing with matters.
  We have a serious question to deal with. It turns on whether we are prepared to run risks. I put the matter before the Committee not on the basis that it is absolutely and utterly impossible that public inquiries could be held within what is regarded by all hon. Members as a desirable time scale. We might be lucky. It might be possible. Everything might run like clockwork. The inquiries might not need to be held or, if they did, they might be completed in a short time.
  It is not the Government's position that the procedures that are urged on us are necessarily and definitely impossible to achieve. However, we cannot be certain that the procedures would be achieved. Indeed, the better view that I have is that they would not be achieved. I freely concede that that involves an element of judgment. But it does not require an element of judgment to recognise that, whatever view one takes of the matter, one must accept the possibility that the process will not be concluded within the relevant time scale and that, as a consequence, Britain will be unable to take up our extra seats in the European Parliament.
  That recognition is independent of judgment. That is what the hon. Member for Sedgefield and his right hon. and hon. Friends have to face and have refused to lace. That is the bottom line which has to inform our deliberations.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Blair: I agree that one must make a sensible judgment of the risk, but let us make the matter absolutely clear. As I understand it, there is no difference between us, on our time scales, about the likely run of the public
  346
  inquiry. So the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is not valid. Other things may elongate the inquiry, but deliberate delay is not one of them.
  It may well be the case that public inquiries of a general nature such as planning inquiries are supposed to last days but last months. But I can think of no justification for imagining that constituency boundary inquiries will run beyond the time that they have always run.
  Mr. Howard: I am astonished at the innocence of the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that we agree on the likely duration of the public inquiries. That is not the point. The point is that what we regard as the likely duration may not, in the event, turn out to be the actual duration.
  It does not strike me as outside the realms of possibility that we might face a sustained and deliberate attempt to obstruct and delay the whole process. We might well face a concerted attempt—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: From that lot behind me.
  Mr. Howard: I do not join my hon. Friend in identifying any particular source, but it is perfectly possible to envisage a sustained and deliberate attempt to obstruct and delay the process. We would then be unable to complete the procedures within the time available.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: First, can the Secretary of State cite any example of a Boundary Commission public inquiry that lasted longer than the time frame that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) identified? Secondly, given that the procedure that the Government have put before us is entirely novel, why is it not possible to include in it a limit on the length of time that the public inquiry could take?
  Mr. Howard: I have dealt with the first question. It was precisely identical to that asked by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and I answered it.
  Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not.
  Mr. Howard: I answered the question fully. I told the Committee that, if the hon. Gentleman was prepared to proceed on the basis that, because something had not happened in exactly the same way in the past, one could safely assume that it would never happen in the future, his approach to the decision-making process struck me as eccentric.
  In answer to the second question, I am not aware of any attempt that has been made to set a time limit on the public inquiry process. It would lead to great difficulties in practice. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has suggested something different. He suggests putting a time limit on the whole process, not merely on the public inquiry, and requiring public inquiries, if they are held, to be completed within that overall time limit. That gives rise to different difficulties, which I am perfectly prepared to deal with if I am pressed to do so.
  Before I began to accept interventions, I was about to deal with the amendment. We know what it purports to achieve, but it does not achieve it. Although its defect is capable of being remedied, it is important that I explain.
  The amendment says:

  347
  "The Committee shall have regard to Paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act."
  It is not easy to see what the term "have regard to" means in that context. Sub-paragraph (1) is an optional provision about local inquiries. Sub-paragraph (2) is a mandatory provision, which triggers local inquiries if demanded by 500 electors or a local authority. Sub-paragraph (3) gives a Boundary Commission discretion to hold further local inquiries.
  We know that the hon. Gentleman does not intend the third of those provisions, but in so far as we understand what he seeks to achieve, as he has explained it this afternoon, I have to tell him that his amendment would not achieve it.
  Let me deal with the timetable that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. On the whole, he has summarised accurately and fairly. I do not take issue with the difference between his timetable and the one that I think more likely. On the basis of the judgment that I have reached and the advice that I have given, my view is that his timetable is unrealistic.
  One has to give proper time to allow for representations objecting to the committees' proposals. It is only fair to give local authorities proper opportunity to meet to discuss the proposals and submit them to the committees. It would be difficult for local authorities to achieve that during August. Therefore, we must allow them sufficient time in September.
  The time that the hon. Gentleman's timetable allows is too short. If public inquiries were to be held, that would take much longer. That point was made to me by the English boundary commissioners, who believe that the hon. Gentleman's timetable which involves finishing the task with public inquiries by 9 December, is unrealistic. It would be impossible to do justice to the task in the time proposed. In their experience—they are the repository of experience in these matters—the inquiries tend to add substantially to the length of the process.
  First, the committee has to consider carefully whether an inquiry is warranted; secondly, it has to give adequate notice of the inquiry to enable people to prepare the information that they wish to represent. That takes us a week behind the hon. Gentleman's timetable. That is based on the judgment that the process will take not fewer than nine weeks overall: two weeks for the committees to decide whether inquiries are needed; four weeks for publicising them; and three weeks for conducting all the inquiries. The practice of the Boundary Commission is to organise public inquiries some months in advance to allow people wishing to attend to prepare themselves properly.
  Even within those nine weeks, the setting up of inquiries is not a simple task. Finding a suitable venue can present considerable difficulties. Finding a senior and appropriately qualified lawyer to preside at the hearing is not necessarily easy. Currently, all the assistant commissioners who are used for Boundary Commission inquiries are heavily committed Queen's Counsel or other senior barristers. There needs to be at least a further two weeks beyond what the hon. Gentleman allows in order to give them adequate notice, for their briefing material to be prepared and for them to study and absorb it.
  In addition to the nine weeks required for setting up and conducting the inquiries, it will take considerable time for the committee to consider and act on the reports of the
  348
  inquiries. We need to allow for the likelihood that up to 10 inquiries would be needed. The hon. Gentleman's timetable allows only two weeks for the preparation of reports on the inquiries.
  It has to be remembered that the people who preside at the inquiries are not employed full-time. They have to fulfil other professional commitments, as well as preparing the detailed reports. When the committees consider the reports, they will need to take into account a number of factors, to study the transcripts and to evaluate the representations received. The hon. Gentleman's timetable allows only two weeks for that process, and that is not adequate.
  Bearing in mind the number of inquiries envisaged, at least another three weeks would be required beyond the time set by the hon. Gentleman to allow the committee members to cope with the volume of work that would be generated. Such judgments have led me to the conclusion that the timetable put forward by the hon. Gentleman is unrealistic. I accept that those are matters of judgment. However, none of the differences makes any allowance for the delays and other inhibiting factors that would be beyond the control of either the members of the committee or the Government.
  It does not require any great imagination or ingenuity to identify circumstances that would knock the process completely off course. The sudden illness of a committee member or someone appointed to conduct the inquiry would lead to considerable delay. As I said earlier, an inquiry might be prolonged as a result of a deluge of oral representations, whether or not they were part of a concerted and orchestrated campaign. A venue might suddenly no longer be available, for all sorts of reasons. Venues of the necessary kind are not easy to find at short notice. That, again, would lead to considerable delay.
  Mr. Blair: One can hypothesise situations in which time scales become impossible—if the Secretary of State were right, virtually any time scale would be impossible to adhere to because of the unforeseen events that might occur. Even if we were to add six weeks on to our time scale, with the worst hypothesis for one or two inquiries, it would take the process to late January. I appreciate that those are matters of judgment and I hope that I am not being unreasonable, but, with the greatest of respect, I cannot understand the judgment that leads the Secretary of State to believe that that is wholly impossible.
  Mr. Howard: I have clearly set out my position. The difference between us is some seven weeks. The difficulty that I face is that factors such as those that I have exemplified are not susceptible to any control. It simply is not possible to set a limit on the extent to which they may prolong the process. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that that is the case with any timetable. That is why we have to ensure that we have sufficient leeway to give us the scope to make the assessment that the risk is acceptable.
  The essential difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that he speaks—I am not making a simple debating point—from the Opposition Benches and I speak from the Government Benches. I would have responsibility for the process. I have the responsibility for looking at it carefully and ensuring that it is not vulnerable to unforeseen contingencies that could knock the whole process off course.

  349
  That is why it is not unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman, sitting where he is, to deal with the matter in terms of likelihoods and predictable events and cutting corners here arid there. However, sitting where I sit, I have to build into the process sufficient leeway and a sufficient margin to give me some assurance that we shall achieve a result that is desired on all sides.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of a result that is desired on all sides. I am not sure that all hon. Members on the Government Benches regard that as a desirable result. Is it not highly probable that, if people can so orchestrate events that they take much longer in the House, if they were given the opportunity to do so in the country at large, we never would get the results in time for elections?
  Mr. Howard: I am not certain how entirely helpful is the parallel that my hon. Friend draws, so I hope that she will forgive me if I do not follow her down that road. It is clear that we would be running substantial, and unacceptable, risks.
  Mr. Hoon: I have listened to the Home Secretary describing his great weight of responsibility. Given the timetable resulting from the Bill, were those matters in the collective mind of Home Office Ministers for the long period that we have had to wait for the Bill to be presented to the House? The Home Secretary makes a persuasive case about accepting his responsibilities, but were they not the same during the eight months that we waited before the Bill was presented?
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Howard: Yes, of course, those matters were in, the collective mind of the Home Office and of others elsewhere during that period. I cannot pretend that they were uppermost in my mind, but they were under consideration. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have faced an exceptionally heavy legislative burden during this Session. For that reason, it has not been possible to bring the proposals to the House before now.
  The timetable that I have placed before the Committee is not one which I have drawn up unaided. It has been drawn up by my officials, in consultation with the Boundary Commission. They have taken into account the time that each of the stages in the procedure can realistically be expected to take.
  I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment. If I thought it possible to achieve the objective that the amendment sets out, without involving an unacceptable risk to the timetable of the process, I should be much more minded than I am to translate my sympathy into action, but I have a responsibility to ensure that the new constituencies are in place in good time for next year's European parliamentary elections. We could not achieve that without taking an undue and unacceptable risk if we were to accept the holding of public inquiries. For that reason, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I listened with care and interest to the Home Secretary's exposition of his difference with the official Opposition over the amendment. It seemed to boil down to a difference of seven weeks. As many more than seven weeks have elapsed since the problem came to public attention,
  350
  he cannot be absolved of responsibility for the imbroglio in which we find ourselves. As he spoke, I was reminded of the Empress Maria-Theresa's attitude to the partition of Poland—the more he wept for the demise of democracy, the more he demanded by way of subtraction from democratic procedures.
  We are arguing not just about seven weeks, but about an important principle and issue of natural justice. That principle is summarised in the phrase—no doubt well known to him as a lawyer—"audi alteram partem", meaning that it is appropriate to hear both viewpoints. If all viewpoints are not openly expressed before the Boundary Commission, or this substitute for a commission which he dreamt up, the public cannot be satisfied that proper considerations have been taken into account during the process, or that justice has been done. The Home Secretary's suggestion that he is anxious to stick as far as possible to the Boundary Commission's procedures is a somewhat threadbare assertion if the core of that procedure, the public inquiry, is dispensed with.
  It was argued on Second Reading, although not by the Home Secretary today, that this procedure is not wholly unprecedented because a somewhat truncated procedure was accepted by Parliament in 1978 on the recommendation of the then Government. I do not need to go into the historical precedent and the reasons for it. However, it is right to note that, in these matters, precedent is often invoked.
  Mr. Howard: Could the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to go into the reasons for that decision have anything to do with the fact that he is the only hon. Member in the Chamber at the moment who was a member of the Government who took that decision?
  Mr. Maclennan: It could, but it does not. The historical record would seem remote from today's debate. Although I have a considerable historical interest in what happened on that first occasion when we made arrangements for the election of Members to the European Parliament, it would be wearisome for the Committee if I were to elaborate upon what happened.
  The point that I want to make is that precedent is invoked in such matters. It is clear in retrospect that it was unfortunate that that precedent was established then because the Government have prayed it in aid as the reason for proceeding as they have today, just as I fear that they may pray in aid in future the precedent of the measure before us to dispense with what many people would regard as a key part of the process of the fair distribution of seats.
  It is not as though this situation is wholly unique. We can anticipate that, in future, there will be alterations in the number of seats consequent upon alterations in the size of the European Community if Scandinavian and eastern European applicants are admitted to the Community. If that happens, we can anticipate that there will be alterations in the composition of the European Parliament. There can be no confident prediction that that will occur at a time which makes it easy for the Government of the day to fit in with the timetable of the Boundary Commission.
  In dispensing with the Boundary Commission's procedures, we are setting a dangerous precedent, which can be ameliorated only in the way suggested by the hon.

  351
  Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) if we are to avoid a sense of injustice following the process which the Bill encapsulates.
  I listened to what the Home Secretary said about his inability to guarantee the conclusion of the procedures if the public inquiry process is included. I am bound to say that his suggested reasons for delay were far-fetched to the point of fancy. It would not be difficult to empower the boundary commissioners—or the committee chairmen as proposed in the Bill—to take steps, in the event of emergencies of the kind adumbrated by the Home Secretary, which would truncate the procedures or ensure that the results were available by a given date. In my opinion, it would be possible to do that in a way that would make it proof against judicial review.
  If there was a will, there would be a way. It must be said that the Home Secretary has, from the beginning, made it plain that he had no will or stomach for ensuring that the carve-up of seats was seen to be fair among all parts of the countries affected. From what the Home Secretary has said, it has been almost impossible to divine the serious objections to the proposed timetable.
  The Home Secretary said that he has heard from some boundary commissioners that they would find the timetable tight and that it does not conform with previous practice. However, we are not dealing with a situation which can be fitted in nicely with the timetables to which boundary commissioners have worked in the past.
  I noted what the Home Secretary said about the fact that some of those who would be participating as counsel in the inquiries are engaged on a part-time basis. It is not entirely clear why that should be an insuperable or even a difficult obstacle. We are not talking about the situation in which there are, by the Home Secretary's own admission, a vast number of inquiries. He suggested that there might be 10. If one cared enough about the democratic process it would be perfectly possible to retain the services of those part-time participants here and now and dispense with them as it became clear that their services were not required.
  Many of the professional people whom the Home Secretary referred would regard it as a normal part of their public service to. be engaged and not to do it for pin money. I venture to suggest that the Home Secretary has exaggerated that problem unconvincingly.
  I hope that the Committee will have heard the careful way in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield spelt out his proposals. The timetable that he adumbrated is realistic and fair and allows ample time at each of its stages for proper consideration of the proposals by individual members of the public, local authorities and others. If that timetable were implemented, it would be possible to include in the Bill provisions for a public inquiry which would ameliorate provisions which are otherwise quite unacceptable.
  The Home Secretary said that the amendment was not drafted so as to achieve its purpose. However, that is almost invariably the case when amendments are drafted by the Opposition or minority parties which do not have the benefit of parliamentary counsel advice. The purpose of the amendment is clear beyond any doubt. If further
  352
  refinements are required, the Government have at their resources skilled draftsmen who are perfectly capable of helping Parliament in that respect.
  If the proposal of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I and many hon. Members on all sides of the Committee support, is accepted, it would be sensible to write in a measure which is not specifically alluded to in paragraph 5A of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 which the amendment seeks to import into the Bill. That is a power for the boundary commissioners or their chairmen to dispense with or timetable a particular part of a proposal, or to manage the procedures of the commission so as to achieve the objective of concluding the process by the date which is generally agreed to be desirable. I understand that the Government wish that process to be concluded by the end of January or perhaps the end of the year. It would certainly be desirable to achieve that process by the end of the year and I have already indicated that view to the Home Office. We are at one on that matter.
  5 pm
  In the circumstances, giving the chairmen of the committees, as they are called in the Bill—they are not the Boundary Commission—the duty to present the report by that time would ensure that their role could be discharged without the threat of judicial review invalidating any step in the procedure or making it practically impossible to hold the inquiries at such a key part of the process. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting amendment No. 23 and I hope that the whole Committee will think it right to do so.
  Mr. John Biffen: The beginning of the debate was almost an uplifting occasion, with the match between the Dispatch Box eloquence of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the forensic skills of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. None the less, there is some unhappiness because there is no doubt that the absence of a public inquiry is inevitably a factor which vitiates the procedures for the prospective European parliamentary elections.
  I should like to be rather more pedestrian and reflect on some of the grubby ways of politics. It is not the fault of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that we find ourselves in this position. We are in this position because a decision, I believe, was taken by the Government that the work of the Boundary Commission on our Westminster constituencies should precede all other considerations.
  If one could summon from the murky depths of Cabinet committees and drag into the daylight blinking Ministers who had taken the decision, one would find that they were all among the most communautaire element of the Cabinet. What does that demonstrate? It demonstrates that, when it comes down to domestic consideration against European commitment, domestic consideration wins, and not just by a nose.
  I make that good-natured observation because it clears the ground from a certain amount of what otherwise might be make-believe.
  It is obviously regrettable that there cannot be public inquiries, but I place some hope upon what my right hon. and learned Friend has asserted about the representations that may take place after the recommendations have been published. I say that in the peculiar context of the review,

  353
  it being about the European constituencies and not about the reviews with which we are naturally more familiar and which relate to the Westminster Parliament. Although the Westminster Parliament experiences the most extraordinary consequences and the most unexpected and unwelcome upheavals in boundary designation, there is a very significant factor, which is that council districts may be cannibalised to produce a relatively static parliamentary situation. Great flexibility is available to those who draw the Westminster boundaries to ensure to some extent that there is maximum continuity.
  No such factor operates in respect of the European constituencies. No Westminster constituency can be cannibalised to try to bring about greater continuity and stability in the European electoral map. One move, I believe, could have more knock-on consequences right across the European electoral map than we have possibly hitherto considered. If that is true, the possible dislocation or redrafting as a result of the adhesion of the four, five or six extra seats could mean a substantial redrafting of the European seats.
  I put that in the context of a very large question mark because I cannot in any sense anticipate the findings of the boundaries committee. However, the very fact that one cannot break up one constituency and allocate it to neighbouring European constituencies deprives us of one factor of bringing about greater stability than would otherwise be the case. That is self-evident, and it means that one has to accept, certainly as a possibility, far greater upheaval from this seemingly relatively simple alteration to our representation in Strasbourg than perhaps we have hitherto assumed. If that is the case, the opportunity for representation, for appeal and for reconsideration is much more powerful.
  Clearly, that is a matter that my right hon. and learned Friend will have considered, but it reinforces the point that there must be maximum opportunities for those who are affected to be able to appeal against whatever decision is made. Whether that can be conveyed to those who will administer the process—and that is in itself sufficient—or whether it will necessitate adjustment in the Bill, I know not, but I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to reassure me on that point.
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has dealt in detail with several practicalities for a timetable for public hearings. I begin by examining one aspect of what I hope are the principles involved, particularly against the background of other provisions in the Bill. I invite hon. Members to read the Bill as a whole and then say whether, on balance, they consider that the approach that the Government are recommending is one that we in this country are either used to or expect from a Government dealing with the sensitive issue of the redrawing of boundaries—something that has been regarded as above and beyond party political considerations and has brought great credit to this country for the way in which such issues are resolved.
  Read as a whole, the Bill contains an extraordinary set of provisions which, taken together, could be viewed as deeply disturbing. They could be described by someone in the Public Gallery, with recent experience of a totalitarian country, as the product of that kind of approach. I do not say that I would use that expression. Someone who lived in the former Soviet Union might look at the provisions with a somewhat jaundiced eye.
  354
  In case Conservative Members consider that I am overstating the case, I invite them to consider the Bill and use the modern term for what we call the Secretary of State or the Home Secretary—"Minister of the Interior". That is, instead of the comforting descriptions that we use—Secretary of State or Home Secretary, to which no one in this country would take exception—we might use the expression "Minister of the Interior". That would produce a different interpretation, particularly of the schedule.
  If the "Minister of the Interior" were responsible for the appointment of the members of the various committees and their staff and, in turn, responsible for their terms and conditions and determining their pay, we would be looking at the proposals much more suspiciously. If he were then able to make modifications to the proposals without necessarily referring to a member of the committee—and, indeed, he was able to make further incidental or consequential provisions—we would have some doubts about whether that was the sort of system that we expected from a democratic Government in a democratic society. That is one aspect of the schedule and the way in which the committees are composed.
  We would be more disturbed if the provisions were unable to be challenged legally. That is the sort of approach that we expect in totalitarian societies. In such societies, we would expect the Government to introduce proposals that could not be subject to any sort of legal challenge. Of course, that is precisely what we find in the schedule—the recommendations of the committees cannot be challenged in the courts. We have discussed that matter and I listened to the Minister's explanation. His explanation was less than satisfactory, if I can put it that way. In addition, the Bill provides for the committees to be established in advance of Royal Assent. Clause 2(6) provides for the work of the committees to be retrospectively validated.
  I mention those points simply to show how someone who perhaps does not clearly understand the intention and motivation of the Government, which I am sure is fair-minded and reasonable, with regard to the proposals might read the Bill and say that it does not have the hallmark of fairness that we would expect in Britain, which is associated with the sensitive subject of the drawing of boundaries.
  I mention all of those points not to depart from the amendment but to emphasise a simple point of principle. If the Government say that there is no validity whatever in the argument, a simple way of resolving the problem would be to accept the idea that there should be public involvement in the process, as proposed in the amendment.
  There should be proper public consultation and hearings of the sort that we would expect if this were a matter for the boundary commissioners, or a procedure that the Home Secretary described as being "as close as possible to the procedure adopted by the boundary commissioners". The reason for my long introduction is simply to put the matter in the context of the Bill.
  The amendment, however it is interpreted, would permit a clear refutation of the argument that somehow or other the Government are being unfair, partial and not necessarily adhering to the spirit of the redrawing of boundaries which has been a characteristic of the House and its work for some considerable time.
  I turn to the Home Secretary's arguments about the timetable. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that his

  355
  argument was a little slippery with regard to the justification for the Government's difficulties. The Government have known for some eight months that they had to introduce these proposals. I listened carefully to the arguments advanced in terms of the Home Secretary's responsibility to ensure that the procedure is conducted properly and there is not the opportunity for people to disrupt the process and make it last much longer than any conceivable timetable will allow.
  Those are perfectly reasonable arguments, and I can understand the Government's fear. However, that needs to be balanced against the fact that the Government have known for some eight months that they had to introduce this Bill. The Home Secretary's arguments would be much more acceptable, and certainly more understandable, if there had been greater urgency on the part of the Government.
  It is hard for me to accept—I sat through most days and nights of the Maastricht process—that there are not three days of parliamentary time for the Bill, even allowing for the time that was taken to deal with the Maastricht Bill, and assuming that as many as three days are necessary to complete all of the relevant stages. That argument is a little difficult to accept against that background.
  5.15 pm
  The argument is more difficult to accept when the Home Secretary shifts his position slightly and slips from one justification to another. He began by saying that it was difficult to follow the various stages that would be required within a reasonable time and then concluded by saying that one of the real difficulties was that the process could be open-ended if people took advantage of the opportunity to frustrate the work of the public inquiries.
  I know that the Home Secretary, in a previous incarnation, has had considerable experience of public inquiries. Clearly, some public inquiries have stretched for a considerable time—and much longer than originally envisaged. However, I cannot think of a Boundary Commission public inquiry that has lasted an inordinate amount of time, nor one that has been abused in that way.
  Let us assume that, in some part of the country, people took it into their heads to prolong the work of a public inquiry. The Home Secretary knows better than I—and probably better than any other hon. Member—how public inquiries are organised and run, and how those who are responsible for taking evidence organise the work.
  With that practical understanding of the process, he knows better than anyone else that whoever is responsible for the organisation of a public inquiry could at the outset set out the opportunities that people would have to give evidence, the time limits that he expected and, if necessary, the sort of sittings that could be arranged if there was any deliberate organised attempt to prolong the proceedings for longer than the timetable proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
  The Home Secretary knows that the people who are appointed to organise public inquiries are not usually those who will be intimidated by the organised disruption of business. Effectively, he is saying that an organised filibuster might make such public inquiries take longer than to next June, which is clearly the date that we are concerned about. Even if a public hearing ran into May, it
  356
  would still be possible to hold public inquiries and allow us to reach a conclusion. I simply invite the Home Secretary to examine that aspect.
  The Home Secretary is saying that the Government want the process to be completed towards the end of November, rather than towards the end of December or January, whichever timetable is adopted. As he fairly said, that is a matter of judgment. It is a matter of exercising our minds about what is appropriate. In that context, I simply invite him to consider this question: what difference will that make in practice?
  Let us assume that the process is completed by the end of November—I understand that that is roughly the Government's intended timetable. That would mean that, over the Christmas holiday period of late December to early January, we would all know the nature of the European constituency boundaries. That does not seem to add unduly to the advantage that the political parties may gain from the knowledge of the precise organisation of the European constituencies at that stage. It seems to make little difference to the candidates standing in those elections whether the changed boundaries are published in late November, ready for Christmas and the new year, or at the end of December or January.
  Having stood in two such elections, I recognise the advantage to the candidates of knowing as early as possible the nature of the boundaries. I do not argue against that and I understand why the Government want them to be published as soon as possible. However, as the Government have waited for eight months, it is difficult to accept that eight more weeks will make a big difference to European constituency organisation and election campaigns fought by the candidates.
  Although the constituencies will not be finalised, most candidates will have a good idea of the nature of the constituencies in which they will be campaigning. Hon. Members are as familiar with that process as anyone else. Once the Boundary Commission has produced its proposals, notwithstanding the possibility of a public inquiry, everyone has an idea what the constituencies will be like once the elections take place. That is what we are arguing in terms of the European constituencies.
  The committees will make their proposals in August. Whether or not there are procedures for public consultation, those proposals will he known to everyone. The opportunities for changing them will be relatively limited, because, for the time being. most European constituencies contain some eight parliamentary constituencies. The rules will be the same as in the past, whereby entire parliamentary constituencies must fit within European constituency boundaries.
  In those circumstances, the possibilities of change will not be so great that candidates will be unduly and adversely affected by a delay of eight weeks in the process, given the fact that we have already waited eight months. It is therefore a little difficult to accept the argument about the timetable.
  In the context of a Bill that raises questions in people's minds about the integrity and objectivity of the process of redrawing boundaries, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, so that the Bill can proceed smoothly with widespread acceptance in the House.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I hope that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument precisely, although he was correct

  357
  to remind the House that we should not take our democratic practices for granted. It would be easy to do so as, because we have become accustomed to them, we feel that they can be bent or adjusted according to the exigencies of developing circumstances.
  I refer to the interesting words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). I do not share his suspicion of ministerial actions but believe that Ministers have given deep thought to the requirements of these elections, as they do to those of domestic elections. They have planned the process carefully, bearing in mind the outcome that they wish to achieve—fair boundaries for fair elections, which will result in as fair an outcome as possible, representing a variety of political opinions from throughout the country.
  Although I regard the Bill with less suspicion than my right hon. Friend, I share with him some qualms about the possibility, although not the probability, of the cannibalisation of Westminster constituencies to make up tidy European parliamentary constituencies. There would be less redrawing of existing seats and less upheaval if a different form of elections were used in the future.
  Mr. Biffen: A Westminster seat cannot be cannibalised in the context of European elections. That point was put to me recently by a Member of the European Parliament.
  Mr. Rathbone: I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification and reassurance. I hope to be able to provide a little more reassurance in a moment.
  To achieve what the House and the Government want to achieve requires considerable study and the maximum opportunity for those concerned, at both the receiving and planning ends, to expose their thoughts and have them questioned.
  The opening remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave some reassurance. He described the committee, as it is to be called, that is to be set up for Wales and made up of commissioners. However, there are some serious difficulties in identifying proven commission members for the committee for England. Even if that turned out to the best, it seems to show that there may be a requirement for even greater supervision and review of their conclusions than would normally be the case for a Westminster constituency.
  I shall not be tempted to reiterate all the timing problems, as both sides of the argument have been put clearly. However, I conjecture with the House about how our decisions today could affect actions in the future, particularly if at some time in the future a pan-European system of elections were adopted and applied to this country, as it would be applied to all other countries in the European Community. For example, if the additional member system were adopted for this process, the plans that we are now making would affect what was considered then.
  I share with hon. Members on both sides of the House a belief that it is a pity that the Government have risked missing the opportunity to adopt the additional member system, because it would be sensible to adopt a system designed for additional members when we are discussing the allocation of additional members. It seems to fit so beautifully tidily and might even let my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary off the hook if it were adopted. There is no difficulty in Wales because Wales is being treated as a single constituency anyway, but it would
  358
  require a drawing of constituency boundaries in England to establish the best system, which is regional representation for the five additional seats that are to be given to England.
  The basis for that system lies in our economic regions, although there are eight of those so they would have to be adjusted to fit the five seats. There would have to be combinations of areas such as north, Yorkshire and Humberside, north-west and east midlands, east Anglia and east midlands, north-west and the west midlands, the south-west, and the south-east. I shall not attempt at this stage to set out a prescription for that, and there is nothing sacrosanct in any of those divisions.
  It would be easy to set up the new Euro-constituencies for an additional member within the constraints so clearly outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North. With that possibility in mind, I consider it all the more important that a clear system is set up now, and that we do not create further precedents for the establishment of constituency boundaries in the way that the Government have outlined.
  5.30 pm
  This is not blue sky dreaming; it is not an impossibility. It is possible that the new requirement will come to pass. It is not a new fad. Our electoral system has developed over the centuries: we have made quantitative reforms, such as broadening the franchise so that men and women have equal voting rights; the voting age was lowered recently and, even more recently, people on holiday or living abroad were allowed to vote. We are not unused to changing our electoral circumstances and methods.
  We have even been innovative in terms of qualitative improvements, as can be seen in the electoral arrangements for the European Parliament that have been made in Northern Ireland. Those arrangements establish a better representation of the various divisions in Northern Ireland.
  Steps towards further reforms—whether unilaterally by the United Kingdom Government or as part of a pan-European activity—are not inconceivable. There are well-established criteria for such developments.
  We want the British system to maintain the current firmly rooted democratic practice of a close relationship between representatives and their constituencies. That would mean a continuation of the current first-past-the-post system of elections for the European Parliament. Subsequently, to allow for national unity and representation of minorities—especially nationally based minorities —additional Members would be added.
  The additional seats would encourage broadly based national parties to gain representation in areas where they have sizeable support, although they do not have a majority. There are two very good examples in Scotland, which were raised in the House only yesterday. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party in Scotland do not have proportionate representation in the European Parliament. We want to maintain in this country—as we always have—a simple system, as opposed to the complicated systems of other European countries.
  Those points underline, yet again, the possibility—the probability, perhaps—of the adoption of the additional Member system, particularly where additional Members are already being established. That would both increase proportionality and maintain single-Member constituency representation.

  359
  It may seem as peculiar for a Conservative to adopt this line today as it seemed yesterday for a hon. Member for a Sussex constituency to be concerned about representation in Scotland, at the other end of the United Kingdom, but it is not as peculiar as it might seem at first. Some change to the electoral system for the European Parliament is inevitable, sooner or later. It would be in British interests, and the Government's interests, to adopt the system best suited to our present and future, and to give the lead and promote it as the best system for Europe. If we do not do that now, we will inevitably have to do it in the future, at a time when political pressures may be much greater.
  If we adopted the system now, we would give a good British and Conservative lead to the rest of Europe. We would establish a paternity for reform, which I would be only too pleased to see as part of the action and initiative of my party, Parliament and the country. We would, in the process, show our commitment to constitutional propriety.
  I am not being disloyal to the present Government or the present system—although I think that the system could stand improvement—by putting forward these suggestions. In the past, the Tory party has been committed to protecting individual rights and individual responsibilities, and I think that has been at the core of many of the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are certainly committed to supporting properly founded constitutional democracy, and that is one of the themes that I have tried to follow.
  There is no doubt that the ownership of an equally valid vote—along with the opportunity to cast it effectively—is the essence of freedom and the cornerstone of national confidence, without which we will never recreate and conserve a firmly founded United Kingdom. The fact that precedents have been set in the past suggests that we should eschew the temptation to set a further precedent now, which might be detrimental in the future. It is important to remember that young people will have more to enjoy or endure in the future than most of us—certainly more than people of my own generation.
  It is with those questions in mind that I express the hope that Ministers will reconsider the question of public hearings in regard to the drawing of European constituencies. Wider ramifications will be involved in the drawing of those constituencies, not just for now but in the future as Europe, and our position in it, increases.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and I agree with a great deal of what he said. I shall make three or four brief comments, one of which has doubtless been made many times during the debate.
  Although this is a very short Bill and the debates have not been massively attended, it is an extremely important Bill; not to put it too pompously, it is part of the fabric of our democracy. It may be only a small part, but it is an extremely important one. I think that we should change the system of our democracy, or any part of it, only with great care and deliberation. That is not an automatically conservative approach, but an approach based on common sense.
  The structure of boundaries is a small part of a democracy, but we in this Parliament are increasingly in the habit of sending observers to elections in other parts of the world, either from this Parliament directly or through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the
  360
  United Nations. I strongly support that. The intention is to determine whether elections are free and fair, and we must indulge in the exercise with some modesty.
  Mr. Rathbone: One other body through which that is done is the Council of Europe.
  Mr. Grocott: That is right and in all cases, whatever the auspices, the objective is simple but vital in countries such as Angola and Nigeria, to name but two where the exercise was recently carried out. It has been a revealing experience for many of us because it has told us something about our own democracy. Anyone with some humility and intelligence who examines how things are done in other democracies will start to ask questions about how effectively we operate our own democracy. It is right to ask such questions because many aspects of our democracy bear closer scrutiny. So as not to be ruled out of order, I shall mention just two.
  It is most peculiar that in our democreacy the strictest control, based on individual constituencies, is exercised on what candidates can spend. The obvious reason for that is to stop people buying votes. However, there is no control whatever of national expenditure, although we all know that when it comes to the crunch in a general election national considerations primarily determine the outcome. Some hon Members, of whom I am not one because I have lost elections on several occasions, think that the outcome is solely due to the talents of the candidate. However, most of us are honest enough to admit that it has much more to do with national considerations.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: My hon. Friend speaks about general election expenses. Does he agree that money spent in Britain on general elections should be raised here and that money raised overseas should play no part?
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the amendment.
  Mr. Grocott: I am not certain whether my hon. Friend refers to a current example, but I am sure that the principle he has enunciated is right.
  My modest observation is that many aspects of our democracy do not stand up in comparison with some other democracies. The other obvious example relates to the first item that we look at when testing whether elections abroad are free and fair—the dissemination of information. People who observe general elections in this country should apply the test of whether there is fairness among the different news outlets in the explanation of party manifestos and objectives. They would be hard pressed to say that it is fair.
  Another matter that has emerged, if it has not emerged before from observations of overseas elections, is that our democracy is extremely complicated and includes legislation such as the Bill. Free and fair elections cannot just be achieved on the day by checking that the right people take part. It is about the machinery that is established in the run-up to the election and that can extend over many years. That is what we are debating and it is central to a first-past-the-post system, which I strongly favour and hope that we shall retain for a long time.
  There is nothing more central to such a system than the determination of parliamentary boundaries. Although the boundary commissioners will never admit it, the

  361
  determination of such boundaries has strong political ramifications as well as all the usual arguments about community of interest.
  We should be cautious and acknowledge that when the process is interfered with, for whatever reason, it runs risks. Why are the Government interfering in this normal part of our democratic process? Is it because it has not worked in the past? Like many hon. Members, I have been involved for many years in parliamentary and Boundary Commission inquiries. The system works fairly well and it does not take long.
  In Shropshire, the preliminary proposals were presented in September, the inquiry took place earlier this year and the final report is expected quite soon. That is a fairly leisurely pace, but it gave everyone the opportunity to express their views. The public inquiry was relaxed and good and it was a small but essential part of our democratic machinery. There is no reason for tampering with it because there is no suggestion that the procedure is at fault.
  5.45 pm
  Democracy is a fragile flower. We have to be careful how we tamper with it and we must be especially careful when it is tampered with unilaterally. I was persuaded by some of the speeches by Conservative Members. Is it a good idea for the Government to present such a Bill when concerns have been expressed, especially about the amendment, and to push it through? Presumably the Government will use their majority to do that unilaterally and without the sort of consultation that one would normally expect on such a Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who is my parliamentary neighbour, asked in his usual gentle teasing style what happened after Cabinet committees had operated and Ministers blinked in the light of day. Perhaps I can take his inquiry further. We all know the genesis for the Boundary Commission acceleration nationally, which has been followed by the European Boundary Commission. It is because the Conservative party, mistakenly I am happy to say, believes the national newspapers which say that changes in boundaries will give the party a net gain of 25 to 30 seats. I have never believed that for a moment and history is a little on my side.
  There was great agitation about the Boundary Commission recommendation before the 1974 election, which took place in the 1970–74 Parliament. I was not here at the time, but I remember that the newspapers strongly supported the then Conservative Government, no doubt on the ground that when the new boundaries came into operation they would deliver a Conservative victory in February 1974. What happened was unique in British parliamentary history. In the election, Labour did not get as many votes as the Conservatives did, but it won more seats. That is what matters and it resulted in that splendid Labour Government from 1974 to 1979.
  The Home Secretary smiles. He was not here at the time. If he had been it would have been a valuable part of his political education. He could have enjoyed with us our legislation to protect workers and to abolish tied cottages and could have witnessed the move towards fairness in education. I fear that I would be out of order if I went further, but I am sure that you, Mr. Lofthouse, are enjoying this as much as I am.
  362
  That belief by the newspapers was based on the false premise that a boundary redistribution was always an advantage for the Conservative party. There is bad news for the Conservatives almost by the month. Although I can speak only of areas that I know best, it is predictable that seats will go in city centres. But they will be re-established in the suburbs and the more rural areas as people, many of whom I am happy to say are Labour voters, move to the suburbs and rural areas.
  I confidently look forward to Labour Members being returned in many of the seats that have been recommended so far. That will happen at the next general election, and the sooner the better. It is based on a false premise. Labour Members, being altruistic, will not try to rush through boundary changes because we know that they are to our advantage; we believe that they should be based on established democratic procedures which include essentially a proper public inquiry at which everyone who is likely to be affected can make their views known.
  It is easy for a Government with a majority, albeit a small one, to say, "This is in our political interests so we will get it through, and it is tough if you are in opposition." It is in the nature of political life and happens often in regard to various pieces of legislation, but it is particularly bad and dangerous when it involves the machinery of our democracy. We tend to be a little pompous about it, particularly in relation to other countries, but it has been established with considerable difficulty and numerous parliamentary battles over a long period.
  I urge the House to see the common sense of my hon. Friend's amendment and to ensure that proper democratic public inquiries take place for the European elections.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: In principle, we are absolutely correct to support the amendment, as we are in danger of threatening our entire democratic process by removing the public inquiry from any boundary change, especially in Europe.
  We are in the throes of discussing local government boundary changes in Scotland. The people of Scotland are not happy with the present lack of consultation. The Government are continually destroying people's rights to be heard and to make democratic observations in the right and proper place and on the right and proper platform.
  I remember one of the first public inquiries in which I took part. I am not an academic; I have never professed to be an academic. I have seen how Ministers and Members of Parliament operate in the House of Commons. When they meet someone who asks a complicated question, they say, "Write me a letter," and they never receive that letter. That- is the biggest put-off they can give anybody. How many people out there can write letters to inquiries?
  We should consider the rights of our constituents to examine boundary changes. Anyone living in any constituency has the right to be heard. We are not talking about people's right to write an elaborate letter and put everything that they feel into that letter. Many of our constituents do not have the skill to write letters putting their objections. They need the right to a public inquiry so that they can articulate their views, perhaps better than they can write.
  My name is not Jeffrey Archer; I am Tommy Graham, a Member of Parliament who came up through the ranks and went to a comprehensive school. I did not go to any fancy university or public school. I had an elementary

  363
  education and I have worked at it all my life. I still do not write 50 or 60-page letters. That is not my style; it is not how I operate, nor is it my academic upbringing.
  We insult millions of people by not allowing them to take part in the democratic process of a public inquiry. It is an insult to destroy their right to be heard. In a democracy, it is important that we never short-circuit; when we do, we end up with dictators, bad legislation and shoddy workmanship. The Government should never take away people's right to be heard. They cannot expect everyone to sit down and write out their objections.
  I represent a constituency which epitomises the solid working-class in Britain. Most people in my constituency do not have work, perhaps as a result of Government policies. I have spoken to folk about many things, and I have fallen into the same trap—[Interruption.] If any hon. Member wishes to ask a question, I am happy to give way.
  When folk have come to my surgery with their problems and I have had a big surgery with 20 or 30 folk waiting, I have said, "Maybe you could go home and write to me." I got a blank look, and then I saw the pain that I caused. Now I never ask folk to do that before asking, "Are you all right at letter writing? Do you have any difficulties? If you wish to dictate a letter, we will sit down and work it out."
  A public inquiry is a vehicle for vocal expression and that is crucial to democracy. I will continue to elaborate my point so that the Minister will be absolutely clear as to what I am saying. We all know that there are frail, elderly people who may be suffering from some mental or physical problem or an illness that does not allow them to sit down and write an elaborate letter. I do not always ask my constituents to write letters; I give them help and assistance to articulate their views so that they can sign a statement saying exactly what they want and pass it on to the Government.
  The Government are now short-circuiting democracy by setting up committees whose members will say that people can write with their representations. However, Mrs. McDonald, a housewife without academic experience, may still wish to make representations about boundaries.
  In a famous case in Scotland, a woman took her case to the European Court and won. I see the wee smile on the Minister's face and I am delighted to see that he has some humour. She articulated her case and the court put it on paper.
  My demand is not short-circuiting democracy; the Government have short-circuited all kinds of democracy. They do not listen to people. Another way of turning a deaf ear is to make people write.
  I plead with the Minister to support our amendment, as it is sensible. If the Government do not support it, they will be getting into the realms of political chicanery and letting the Boundary Commission get away with it. I notice that you are listening closely, Mr. Lofthouse, and I shall stick rigidly to the amendment. The point I am making is relevant to the amendment. It is also relevant to local government in Scotland as the Boundary Commission there will be able to act in the way I have mentioned.
  All the boundaries start at distict council level. The wards are made into regional council sets which then are
  364
  made into parliamentary seats which are made into European seats. Aspects of local government make it important that the whole process is followed through.
  There is no way in which anyone could be denied the right to argue about the geographical location of boundaries in local government. There is no way in which we would accept that we do not have a right to a public inquiry to articulate our arguments about parliamentary boundaries. We would go loopy loo in here if we were denied that right. So why should we accept a situation in which the issue of the European boundaries will not be allowed a full public debate?
  Whether they can write letters or not, people have the democratic right to be heard. Everyone has a right to speak and to be listended to, and I hope that the Government will allow them to do that.
  6 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I apologise for not being present during the Front-Bench speeches. I was asked to comment on the welcome decision of the court to require the Home Secretary to review again the issue of a posthumous pardon for Derek Bentley. I and many others have campaigned for that, so naturally I had to give it some priority. I am pleased that the Home Secretary is here. I hope that he examines the case carefully, because he knows that there is a well of opinion on the side of reviewing the case and granting a posthumous pardon. I will not go further down that road, but that is why I was not able to be present.
  I want to comment on the question of public inquiries because it is important. I happen to be a victim of boundary changes. I realise that we are talking about European seats—EC seats. We use the word "European" too sloppily. Europe is a continent and the word should not be used when referring to a group of 12 trading states that are forming an inward-looking block. The issue of public inquiries relates to every decision about a constituency, whether it is a parliamentary seat or the larger—half a million—EC seat. Public inquiries often represent keenly fought arguments and invoke strong feelings in relation to disputes over a decision by a committee about whether an area should be excluded or included.
  For nine and a half years I was the Member of Parliament for Keighley. There was a strong argument about whether an area called Ilkley should be included in that constituency. It was widely regarded as an overwhelmingly Conservative area and, since I had a majority of 75, the question whether that area should be included was examined with some concern.
  We argued that Bingley should be included. We suggested that, not only on the ground of political advantage, although that is a motivating factor in many people's concern, but because it was a better unit. It was closer to the centre of Keighley and would have made a much more effective political and representative unit, more able to be represented by a Member of Parliament than the seat that was finally decided upon. In those circumstances, Mr. Lofthouse, I am sure that you realise that there were heated debates.
  These Common Market seats are difficult and unwieldy. They consist of half a million people at the very least. With that size, it is difficult for people to feel any sort of identity with the person who represents them. The

  365
  first-past-the-post system is much more likely to give a sense of identification than the various conundrums that surround proportional representation. Proportional representation is one way of divorcing any sense of identity between the electorate and the representative.
  That being the case, the first-past-the-post system is more likely to produce arguments about seats, because individuals are involved. That is one of the reasons why we should have a public inquiry to resolve the committee's recommendations. People representing the areas involved may wish to have some say in the decision on an EEC constituency.
  Mr. Rathbone: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's comments about proportional representation and the first-past-the-post system. If he had been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard what I had to say. I am sorry that he was not here, but I am sure that he was busy elsewhere.
  The hon. Gentleman's blanket condemnation of proportional representative systems does not apply to all those systems. For instance, it does not apply to the additional member system, which maintains constituency representation and has members in addition. So that, there is both proportionality and representation of individual constituencies.
  Mr. Cryer: I know that that system was adopted in western Germany and, subsequently, in Germany. It is entirely unsatisfactory because, for example, in Germany 50 per cent. of the members are decided by the additional member system and takes that number of people out of contact with constituencies. In the context or this amendment, it would mean less local feel and the question of public inquiries would not be so important.
  The additional member system also places an additional weapon in the hands of the central party apparatchiks. The dissidents of a party are perforce limited to the possibility of being selected in a reduced number of seats where they can be elected and have some independence in the body to which they are elected. The additional members are chosen by virtue of their loyalty or even subservience to the party.
  I spent five years in the EC. One of the difficulties involved in dealing with the other parties representing member states in the EC is trying to obtain comments from them. They have to clear everything with central office or the central party apparatchiks. If they do not do so, they are in danger of making a statement that will place them not at No. 10 in the list of additional members, but at No. 1,010. If the Labour party had an additional member system, there are several people who would be a long way down the list. Mercifully, we do not have such a system.
  Mr. John Marshall: I was in the European Parliament for twice as long as the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm everything that he has said. In 1984, Mr. Chirac, the leader of the Gaullists, went to a number of people who had been distinguished Members of the European Parliament in the previous five years and said, "You have annoyed me. You will not even be No. 81 on the Gaullist list." The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is quite right because we saw in the European Parliament how that power is misused.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the subject of inquiries. It would be welcome if we were to return to it.
  Mr. Cryer: Under a system in which individuals represent constituencies, the question of public inquiries is more important because the issues are more keenly felt. In Holland, the EC pays considerable expenses directly to political parties. If an inquirer applies for information or comments on a case, it is sent to the party and the case is allocated to a Member of the European Parliament on the list. That means that the issue becomes an amorphous blur rather than a Member taking it up on behalf of constituents and building up, he hopes, a certain following. That is difficult to do in a constituency of half a million people, but at least the individual representing the constituency will have the chance to do so.
  For example, I took up the case of 200 Sheffield steelworkers who, after they were made redundant, were not given money for retraining that was due to them under the treaty of Paris because Commissioner Manuel Marin was using them as a pawn in negotiations with the Government of the day. I had to lead a campaign to get those workers the money. Those steelworkers would say, "We do not accept the recommendations of the Boundary Commission because they would cut us out of the constituency. We are delighted and satisfied with the representation that we have had and we do not want to be part of the EC constituency."
  Under the first-past-the-post system, constituents can say to their Member of Parliament, "What on earth are you doing about this issue?" That is not possible under a list system, because Members are bothered only about staying on the list, which, by and large, is decided not by the electorate but by party apparatchiks. I am opposed to the list system and to proportional representation because the relationship between the member and the constituency is important.
  As an MEP, I represented Sheffield steelworkers and tried to get some changes out of Manuel Marin, who was supposed to be a socialist commissioner but who would not recognise socialism if he had it sprayed on his eyeballs; he certainly did not care about Sheffield steelworkers. Under the amendment, if people felt that the Boundary Commission or the proposed committee was mistaken, they could write a letter of complaint or be represented at a public inquiry.
  Being represented at a public inquiry is fairly daunting, but there is almost always somebody who will represent a group of people who will have the opportunity to air their views. A public inquiry generates more publicity. Local newspapers attend public inquiries and, if a matter is hotly contested, representatives of local radio and television sometimes turn up, which generates more publicity for the issues that are being enjoined. That is patently a more democratic process, because it is open and an inspector makes recommendations.
  6.15 pm
  There is a view that the proposed committees are not entirely satisfactory. The Bill is being rushed through. We know that boundary commissioners are appointed by the Government, but they try to gain a reputation for independence. Are the Government establishing committees that will support them or at least that are complacent

  367
  and do not have an objective thought? It may be wrong to make that assertion, but it would be easier to discount if the amendment proposing a public inquiry were accepted.
  A public inquiry is an open process and it would act as a stop-gap against an allegation that the committees that are being set up fairly rapidly might make a decision politically in favour of the governing party. Every Boundary Commission proposal is accused of being lickspittle subservience to the governing party.
  That may be true—on balance, I think that it is untrue —but in Keighley the view then and now was that the commission favoured the Government and handed Keighley on a plate to the Conservative party. Many people simply do not believe the claim that the boundary commissioner was absolutely neutral and that everything was above aboard—and that was with a public inquiry. What will they say about a system that does not offer a stop-gap, whereby people can present their view? Even if people do not accept the decision, at least they will have had the opportunity of putting their point of view to the inspector or presenting papers. It is a much better and more open system than a decision taken in writing behind closed doors.
  If the Minister wants to avoid the taint of the accusation of political partiality and prejudice—
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): It did not happen in Keighley.
  Mr. Cryer: We had an open public inquiry in Keighley and people's criticisms, at least on that score, were set at rest. But the fact that people still regard it as gerrymandering shows that prejudice lingers long and that without an inquiry it would linger longer and more fervently. Therefore, would not it be a good idea for the Secretary of State to say, "In order to ensure that the grounds for criticism of political prejudice are absolutely minuscule, the back-stop of a public inquiry has been incorporated and, moreover, we accepted a Labour party amendment in the House of Commons to ensure that we showed beyond peradventure that good will and impartiality are being incorporated in legislation." That is quite important because people should know that decisions of committees are as open and straightforward as possible.
  I do not believe that the expense of five extra MEPs is worthwhile, and if the amendment brought the whole thing tumbling down I would not be terribly worried. If, for example, the legislation were not passed and if, as a consequence, no extra people were sent to Strasbourg or the committee rooms at rue Belliard in Brussels or sent on odd journeys to Luxembourg in the labyrinthine consultation process, I would not shed a single tear. In fact, I would cheer, because we would save the taxpayer some money, so much of which is flooding into the silly common agricultural policy which is never improved or changed but merely costs more money. At the same time, I should be able to consider whether the legislation, if it is to be passed, can at least be improved. Although I am opposed to the concept, it might as well be amended and improved.
  The Labour party's amendment would mean that a public inquiry would be held. It would be an improvement because it would remove any taint of partiality from the committees, which would be important for them in the carrying out of their function. They would be able to argue
  368
  that, although one may disagree with the appointments, the Government at least accepted a Labour party amendment and that the legislation has, to some extent, been subject to improvements from both parties and must therefore have a degree of impartiality. If people disagreed with the committee's decisions, there could be a public inquiry.
  I should have thought that the Home Secretary would find it difficult to resist such a formula. However, he does some nasty things from time to time, so he may be able to resist it—signing exclusion orders was one especially unjust and nasty thing that he did recently, so I do not have much hope that he will consider the amendment in the spirit of good will and impartiality in order to get the best electoral arrangements in the creation of the additional seats.
  The democratic processes apply equally to all parties, and we should obtain the best and fairest system possible. I should have thought that a public inquiry would be an advantage.
  The Minister might argue that everything is being done in a frightful hurry because this hurried and lunatic system was set by the Common Market and we must follow suit and establish the new seats. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said, public inquiries can be incorporated into a time scale to allow for decisions to be made and recommendations for Orders in Council sent to the House. A public inquiry would be included if there were any controversy, which is the only circumstance in which it is likely to be relevant. It is not a great possibility, but we should nevertheless legislate for it.
  I am not very much in favour of the legislation, but, as I have offered such a reasonable amount of support for a reasonable amendment, I hope that the Home Secretary will be reasonable in return and will accept the amendment, because it would be a plus for the democratic system.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to support the amendment. I suppose that one of the good things to come out of the Maastricht treaty is the fact that we are being allocated six extra seats in the European Parliament. I presume that it is because of the unification of Germany, and the subsequent increase in population, that Wales is to have a further seat and England another five. We debated Scotland's position yesterday, and I believe that it would have been fairer if Scotland had received an extra seat and if England had received four of the extra six.
  The amendment asks for a public inquiry to decide the new Euro-constituency boundaries so that the public have the opportunity to make known their views. Like the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), I should have preferred it if the six seats had gone to additional Members under a system of proportionality. I am strongly in favour of electoral reform. I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) received tremendous support from Conservative Members, which must be a cause of severe embarrassment to him. It reaffirmed my conviction that we need electoral reform.
  Mr. Cryer: I guarantee that at the next election every Labour candidate, including my hon. Friend, will be saying that Labour can win under the first-past-the-post system.
  Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is answering the wrong question. His answer was right, but it was to a different question; that question will be posed in 1996, and I am sure that he has the right answer.
  The question we must ask is whether our electoral system is fair, especially to the minority parties. When we have lived through the four Governments that we have, we must ask whether the system works in the best interests of the British people, of my hon. Friend's constituents and of mine. I am sure that we need electoral reform, and I thought that it was part of our agreement to join the European Community that proportionality would in due course be introduced in our elections to the European Parliament. That is an opportunity to introduce an element of proportionality.
  As I understand it, the Government have known about the six extra seats since the Edinburgh summit in November last year. What have the Government been doing in the past six or eight months? Why have they not introduced the relevant legislation or set up the committees to establish the new boundaries? The lack of such legislation is a problem for the Conservative and Labour parties because they do not know exactly where the constituencies will be for the elections in June next year. It also removes the possibility of a public inquiry into the new Euro-constituency boundaries.
  I am delighted that Wales is to receive an extra seat and that our existing four seats will be increased to five. It will give the Welsh people a louder voice in European affairs, but there are considerable problems in drawing the new constituency. I had hoped that the Boundary Commission would opt for minimum change and hold as many as possible of the Westminster constituencies within the three Euro-constituency boundaries. Broadly speaking, one constituency is Newport-based, one is Cardiff-based and one is Swansea-based, but there is a problem with the other two.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I must correct my right hon. Friend. It is quite wrong to say that the South East Wales constituency is Newport-based. As the ex-Member of the European Parliament for South East Wales, I can tell him that nine of the parliamentary constituencies covered by that seat were in the coal mining valleys rather than in Newport.
  Mr. Williams: I stand corrected and bow to the superior knowledge of the former MEP for South West Wales. I must add that I am delighted with the new candidate selected for that seat and wish her well in the coming election. I am sure that we shall win the largest majority in Britain in that seat. I agree that I was using shorthand when I said that the constituency was Newport-based. What I meant was Gwent, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) says—the population of Gwent is heavily concentrated in the industrial valleys.
  My area, Dyfed, is currently combined with West Glamorgan in the South West Wales European constituency. I hope that the Boundary Commission will reject one of the options put forward, which is that Dyfed should join Gwynedd, in which case my Member of the European Parliament would lose half his constituency, which would be split in two. Then there would be a constituency of western Wales, composed of north-west and south-west Wales in one slab.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right to express fears about what might happen in south-west Wales. In the 1973 reorganisation of local government, the Conservatives gerrymandered the county council and split up Glamorgan, thinking that they would take control of South Glamorgan. They were shocked immediately afterwards to find that the Labour party won the seat and has been in power ever since, but it was blatant gerrymandering.
  In south-west Wales we are afra of a Tory carve-up so that the Tories can get a seat in Wales, because they have been rejected. We feel that there ought to be a public inquiry so that the gerrymandering of the Home Secretary—who happens to come from Llanelli—can at least be seen to be translucent.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Williams: I shall move on to that very point. inquiries are vital for the new Euro-constituencies, and I am sure that if there were a public inquiry mechanism, the possibility of a Dyfed-Gwynedd seat would never arise and we would stick to something more like Dyfed-Powys or Dyfed-Powys-West Glamorgan.
  As I understand it, generally 70 per cent. of public inquiries about boundary changes result in substantial alterations, so it is a travesty to dispense with that mechanism.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in 1983–84, when there was a large number of inquiries into proposed Euro-boundaries, the figure of 70 per cent. did not hold good?
  Mr. Williams: I was not aware of that, but the adjustments at that time were generally quite small. For example, in my area eight constituencies increased to nine to form the new Euro-seat. It was just a case of slipping one across. But generally in boundary changes, as I understand it, 70 per cent. of public inquiries lead to alterations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South mentioned the involvement of the general public and the need to give them an opportunity to air their views openly, not in writing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) pointed out, people want to attend public inquiries and give their evidence orally. That opportunity helps to consolidate in people's minds the importance of the Euro-constituencies.
  It is a cause for great regret that in every Euro-election the turnout in Britain has been far lower than in any other European country. I cannot remember, but I think it was less than 60 per cent. last time.
  I certainly remember the first Euro-elections, in 1979, which came within a month of general election. I think that I was one of the hardest workers—or one of the hard workers—in my Euro-constituency in that election. The turnout was something like 33 or 36 per cent. nationally, but in our area it was the highest in Britain. Turnout in Euro-elections is poor, and if the electorate are denied the opportunity of a public inquiry, it is tantamount to a slap in the face. People will think, "It does not matter much to the Government anyway, so why should it matter to me? Why should I vote when the time comes?"
  Public inquiries are necessary, and I hope that the Government will accept our amendment.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I appreciate that time is pressing and will keep my remarks brief.
  Let me take hon. Members back to the Maastricht treaty, because the amendment goes right to the heart of the problems and anxieties that some of us had about the treaty, against which I voted consistently from Second Reading.
  I was not so worried about the future of Europe, or whether we had a place in Europe, as I was about the fact that we were being swept along on a road towards federalism and conducting our affairs for the convenience of Europe.
  In essence, my worries were borne out by the way in which this Bill deals with public inquiries. The Government assured us that subsidiarity would be one of the main advantages of the Maastricht treaty. There was plenty of discussion, as we know, about the definition of subsidiarity, but the main interpretation was that we would be able to conduct our affairs in the United Kingdom in the way that we had always done, which reassured the sceptics, like myself, who knew that we would probably lose the battle.
  This Bill is one of the first major pieces of business to be introduced since we discussed the Maastricht issue. What does it do? It sweeps away our traditional method of selecting boundaries and introduces an entirely new system.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend says that the Bill introduces an entirely new system. May I remind him that in 1978, under the previous Labour Government, the initial boundaries were drawn up for the European elections without public inquiries?
  Mr. Allason: That is certainly the case, but we were assured that it would never happen again. We are now being asked to change our system, and it seems that it pulls the rug from under the argument about subsidiarity. This would have been the ideal opportunity for the Government to say to those of us who are opposed to the Maastricht treaty, "Listen; here is an example of how subsidiarity works. We are using the European model, but we are adapting it to our conventions." The convention in this country has always been that an unpartisan and unbiased Boundary Commission considers boundaries and holds public inquiries.
  Why do we hold public inquiries? It is not for any cosmetic purpose, but so that the man of the Clapham omnibus can believe that he has a fair crack of the whip. It means that he has a forum to which he can go to express his view about a boundary. Even if he fails and his argument is rejected, at least he has had his day in court.
  That is the British way; it is about the man in the street having the right of freedom of speech and being able to express his views to the commissioner in a public forum. He may prevail, but, even if his argument is rejected, he will leave that forum knowing that he has had a fair crack of the whip. He may be disappointed, but when he goes home at night he can put his head on his pillow and sleep soundly because he is satisfied that he has seen justice done.
  What alternative are the Government proposing? They are saying that there is not time for a public inquiry, that it is inconvenient and, furthermore, that instead there will be a committee that will not sit openly. It will receive representations from the general public, but how will they
  372
  know what deliberations took place? Will they, as I suspect, receive in reply a form letter saying, "Thank you very much indeed for your representations, which have been taken into account. Goodbye." That is not what I call democracy, and it will not enable any citizen of this country to believe that he has had a fair crack of the whip.
  The Boundary Commission is part of the foundation of democracy in this country, and when we consider its history, and the history of the way in which constituencies have been drawn up, it is obvious that the drawing of a line in one place or in another, or the inclusion or exclusion of a ward, can make an enormous difference. When such deliberations are conducted in secret, and the public cannot have a fair say, I believe that that undermines the whole system. It certainly gives ammunition to people who believe that decisions are made in smoke-filled rooms. without any account being taken of views that may have been expressed in writing to the committee.
  Many of us have considerable worries about Europe. We are worried about the principle of majority voting, and we have seen commitments being made to majority voting on such important issues as defence, security and foreign policy. We have had assurances from the Government about the implications of Maastricht for those important issues, which are matters of United Kingdom sovereignty.
  My worry is that, on the first occasion when the Government could have made a commitment to the people of this country and demonstrated exactly what subsidiarity means in reality, they are taking the exact opposite course and saying, "Oh dear, we have an important commitment to Europe. We cannot change the June deadline. It would appear to be administratively inconvenient to have a public inquiry or to conduct some kind of investigation by November." That seems to me to strike right at the heart of the Maastricht treaty, and to highlight the worries that many Conservative Members have about its future, and about the path towards which the Government are leading us. Accordingly, I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment.
  Mr. John Marshall: I shall detain the House only briefly. Having served in the European Parliament, as has the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and having taken a close personal interest in the boundaries proposed in 1983, which were eventually determined in 1984, I know a little bit about the problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) talked about subsidiarity. I should have thought that the Bill was a wonderful example of subsidiarity. We are the only country in the European Community with a first-past-the-post system; long may it remain. I know that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary says, things are moving our way on that issue, as on so many others.
  It is somewhat ironic that one of the reasons for the Bill and the procedure outlined in it is the fact that the Government's legislative programme was bogged down when a number of Members refused to vote on procedural motions earlier this year. It seems rum that the very people who refused to vote on the procedural motions on Maastricht are now complaining about lack of time. If they had been more co-operative then, who knows what might have happened? They could have had the Boundary Commission. They could have had both. We might even have been on holiday by now, so we can blame them for that, too.

  373
  6.45 pm
  What happened in 1983–84 was that, although the Boundary Commission made proposals in July 1983, they were not finally determined by the House of Commons until March 1984. The system of public inquiries is time consuming, so it was a long time before the decisions were finalised. We do not have that time now. We have only a short time, which is why I believe that the Government were right to make the present proposal. The fact that there will not be public inquiries does not mean that the original proposals will not be changed. In 1978, the proposals for London and Liverpool were changed as a result of representations, so there can be change even if there are no public inquiries.
  Mr. Hoon: Of course boundaries can be changed, but one of the people who can change them is the Home Secretary. Is the hon. Gentleman content with that provision?
  Mr. Marshall: The Home Secretary has always had that power, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will use the powers that he has been given far more dispassionately than did Lord Callaghan before the 1970 election. I find it appalling that a member of the Labour party should talk about gerrymandering, when what Lord Callaghan did then was the worst example of gerrymandering in the history of this country.
  I am somewhat surprised that some hon. Members seem to believe that members of the general public are anxious to attend public inquiries, to give evidence and to be cross-examined by slick barristers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I did not say that all barristers were slick, I said that some were slick. Some are honourable—and some are right honourable. I believe that many members of the general public are happier if they can make their representations in writing, because they are intimidated by public inquiries, so they will find the procedures in the Bill most satisfactory.
  Mr. Howard: I rise for the sole and specific purpose of giving my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) the assurance that I believe he sought. In the process set out in the Bill full account will certainly be taken of the knock-on effects to which my right hon. Friend referred, and full opportunity will be given to people who wish to make representations about those effects, to have those representations taken into account and to try to persuade the committees to amend their original recommendations for those reasons.
  Mr. Graham Allen: I thank the Home Secretary for his speech. Innocent and naive as I readily admit that I am in the ways of the House, I had hopes on Second Reading that we might be able to find some common ground with the Home Secretary and his colleagues—common ground even broader than that which we found, although I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the assurances that he gave the House at that point. I thought that we would be able to reach common ground on the public inquiries, but it appears that we have not been able to achieve that. Perhaps I was naive in thinking that we would. None the less, I am disappointed—
  Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Allen: I shall give way shortly.
  374
  I am disappointed that common ground concerning a fundamental right in this country—the right to contest elections on honest boundaries, and on boundaries that are not only honest but are seen to be honest, because the correct process has been carried out—no longer appears to exist.
  Now I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
  Mr. Rogers: I was about to ask my hon. Friend whether, when he looked at the Home Secretary and the massed ranks on the Conservative Benches, he realised that he would not get any fairness from them. The Conservative party is trying to improve its position in the European Parliament. It was annihilated at the European elections. Surely my hon. Friend does not expect fairness; surely he does not expect the Conservatives to support his proposals.
  Mr. Allen: Again, I must admit my innocence in such matters—in contrast, perhaps, with the cynicism of my hon. Friend. I had hoped that, provided that we presented a rational case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) did in great detail and with great care, we might be able to win over the Home Secretary and his Minister of State. The main reason for my hope was that we in the House must above all always be on our guard against any erosion of our democratic process.
  No one pretends that the Home Secretary will leave the Chamber and fiddle boundaries for the European elections. I do not believe that that is his intention. However, our approach has been to convince the Home Secretary that the process must at all points be above reproach. It is a process that we have enjoyed in Britain —certainly it applies to parliamentary elections and recently to European elections—for some 50 years. I hope that the Secretary of State is happy to concede that the precedent being set is unfortunate and one that he would never wish to see repeated.
  The Home Secretary said that the reason was that we have had a lack of time properly to conduct the process. There are reasons for that, which I shall mention later. We all agree that there has been a lack of time. Will the Home Secretary reassure us that there is no intention to use the change as a precedent for future boundary redistribution at European level or even at parliamentary or local government level? That answer would help set the right tone and tenor for the debate and vote.
  Mr. Howard: There is certainly no intention to use that as a precedent for the future. I cannot anticipate the various circumstances that may arise, but certainly there is no intention to use it as a precedent. Circumstances that may arise will have to be dealt with on their merits.
  Mr. Allen: The next problem that we face is that the proposals appear to be a matter of administrative convenience. Perhaps officials felt that this was the best way in which to progress. I appreciate that the Home Secretary assumed his post only a few weeks ago and cannot be held personally responsible for the delay that occurred before then. None the less, officials no doubt put it to him that such a course was the only way out of the situation in which the Government had got themselves. Again, the Government have decided to place administrative convenience above a fundamental pillar of our democracy.

  375
  I am reminded a little of the statement made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont—that we have a Government who may well be in office, but who on occasions are actually not in power.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: A minute ago, my hon. Friend said that the Government's action could be a precedent for the European boundaries. There is the exact danger of that happening in Wales, where we shall consider the Bill—perhaps in the autumn or in 12 months' time—on local government reorganisation that will set up around 21 new unitary authorities. Wales will also undergo boundary commission changes in constituency boundaries that will have to take into account the boundaries of those unitary authorities.
  In 1995, we could well find ourselves right up against the deadline of a pending general election. The Government could argue that there was no time for proper public inquiries into Boundary Commission decisions in Wales and that the process would have to be speeded up. That would indeed be a sad precedent.
  Mr. Allen: It is unfortunate that the building blocks of our parliamentary constituency boundaries—the local government boundaries and, ultimately our European boundaries—are, in a sense, being subverted by the way in which the Local Government Boundary Commission is going about its work. For the first time, there has been a political input, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen has pointed out. Once those building blocks and the ward and polling district boundaries are amended, and not in a way that demands cross-party support, a knock-on process begins into parliamentary seats and then further into European parliamentary seats. That has always been alien to our democratic tradition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield talked of how we might view the Bill if the phrase "the Minister of the Interior" were used in an old-fashioned eastern European sense. We would read the Bill differently in that context. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin gave us his experience of observing the processes of developing democracies in Africa and Asia where people would give their right arms to have an impartial and fair boundaries commission of the sort we have enjoyed for so long in this country.
  We press for fair and free elections abroad. It is only here in Ruritania that the process is being thrown into reverse by the Boundary Commissions being done away with. Let us be clear about the Bill. It does away with Boundary Commissions in the European context. It abolishes the right to a public inquiry which the British people have enjoyed for many years. Clause 2 will abolish the right to be heard and the right of effective appeal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) explained so well.
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill reduces the right to be heard and mentions his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde. No one will ever reduce his right to be heard.
  Far more importantly, will the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) accept that the Bill does not reduce the right of individuals to make representations? In the same way, individuals made representations in 1978 about the proposed boundaries, and they were able
  376
  by those representations to change them. There is no reason to believe that under the Bill, the original proposals will have some sort of imprimatur as a result of which they cannot be changed. The hon. Gentleman misleads the House and potential objectors when he implies that they will not have the right to be heard. They will have that right.
  Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman misses the point a little. I readily concede that individual members of the public will be able to make representations to the committees. There is no question about that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees. What will be missing is the right for those representations to be heard in a full public hearing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde pointed out that there are many people who do not wish to make written representations or who are incapable of making such representations effectively. As the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, I should not like to oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde if I confronted him at a public inquiry. He could certainly defend himself, as many members of the public can.
  In the previous round, there were 10 European boundary inquiries and five overturned provisional recommendations as a result of listening to people. People will no longer have that right.
  Mr. Hoon: Will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Member for Hendon, South whether he will make representations at public inquiries into the boundary commission's recommendations about his constituency?
  Mr. Allen: I do not wish to intrude on private grief. I hope that the hon. Member for Hendon, South finds a suitable place for his talents if he loses his current place.
  Mr. Greg Knight (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): The House of Lords.
  Mr. Allen: The House of Lords has been suggested. Unfortunately, that is out of my hands.
  The Home Secretary tells us that we have a boundary commission in all but name. That may be true in terms of the composition of the new committees. Again, I am happy to place on record our thanks for his assurances about the composition of the new committees and for the news he gave us today about the individuals concerned. That is a reassurance. However, it cannot be said that the powers of the new committees will be identical to the powers that the Boundary Commissions once had, and certainly that is true in respect of public inquiries. Why?
  The reason is entirely the Government's delay and incompetence in introducing the Bill. That in turn was caused by their fear of the Maastricht rebels. We shall see later tonight and perhaps in a minute or so whether that fear is justified.
  The Home Secretary made an interesting intervention this afternoon. He said that there was a difference of only seven weeks between his view on the timetable and the view that the Opposition have expressed for a few weeks in our negotiations with the Home Office. If that is the case, I must ask the obvious question. Why was the Bill not introduced seven weeks ago? That would have permitted a full Boundary Commission with a public inquiry process.
  The Home Secretary was not personally to blame, as he was not in that post seven weeks ago. But I hope that he will ask his officials in the Home Office why on earth a full

  377
  and proper Bill was not brought forward seven weeks ago. The difference of seven weeks is not the problem with the Bill and with the amendments—it is the 32 weeks that the Government wasted between the Edinburgh summit and the introduction of the Bill.
  7 pm
  The Opposition have set out a clear timetable in which the full process that the Home Secretary wants, plus the public inquiry that the Opposition want, can both be met. That is possible, and I.hope that those in the other place will examine the timetable. If we fail tonight, I hope that their Lordships make the necessary amendments so that British democracy can retain the full right of public inquiry that we have enjoyed for so long.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 257, Noes 298.

  Division No. 323]

  [7.pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Cryer, Bob

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cummings, John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Alton, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Darling, Alistair

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Davidson, Ian

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Dewar, Donald

  Battle, John

  Dixon, Don

  Bayley, Hugh

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dowd, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Enright, Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Etherington, Bill

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Betts, Clive

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blair, Tony

  Faulds, Andrew

  Blunkett, David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boateng, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Galloway, George

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Byers, Stephen

  Garrett, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cann, Jamie

  Graham, Thomas

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hall, Mike

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  378

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hood, Jimmy

  Olner, William

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Patchett, Terry

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prescott, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jamieson, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Janner, Greville

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rendel, David

  Jowell, Tessa

  Richardson, Jo

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Keen, Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leighton, Ron

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Salmond, Alex

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Short, Clare

  Loyden, Eddie

  Simpson, Alan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McFall, John

  Snape, Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Soley, Clive

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  McLeish, Henry

  Spellar, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McMaster, Gordon

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Stevenson, George

  Madden, Max

  Stott, Roger

  Mahon, Alice

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mandelson, Peter

  Straw, Jack

  Marek, Dr John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Turner, Dennis

  Maxton. John

  Tyler, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Vaz, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michael, Alun

  Wallace, James

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walley, Joan

  Michle, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Milburn, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Miller, Andrew

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morley. Elliot

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wise, Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Murphy, Paul

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ancram, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Amess, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  379

  Ashby, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forth, Eric

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fry, Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gallie, Phil

  Beggs, Roy

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garnier, Edward

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Booth, Hartley

  Gorst, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bowis, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hague, William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burns, Simon

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heald, Oliver

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North

  Cran, James

  Norfolk)

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

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Dicks, Terry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Legg, Barry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lidington, David

  380

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Luff, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Maginnis, Ken

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mans, Keith

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marland, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Stern, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Allan

  Milligan, Stephen

  Streeter, Gary

  Mills, Iain

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Sykes, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thomason, Roy

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

  Norris, Steve

  Tredinnick, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Trend, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trimble, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walden, George

  Pickles, Eric

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waller, Gary

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Ward, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Richards, Rod

  Whitney, Ray

  Riddick, Graham

  Whittingdale, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wilshire, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I did not take part in the earlier debate because I thought it important, rather than simply concentrating on the substance of the amendment, to identify the major weaknesses in the whole of clause 2.

  381
  Those of us who have taken part in a Boundary Commission inquiry, be it for a Westminster or European seat, will know that those matters are extraordinarily complex. They are open to enormous potential conflict of evidence and they are often a recipe for confusion.
  Hon. Members should know that my participation in such Boundary Commission inquiries was as an unpaid amateur. As there are a large number of professionals in the Committee this evening—from the busy activity on the Treasury Benches, it looks as though they will all wish to speak on the clause—I should make it clear that I have never accepted a penny in recompense for my appearances on those occasions. As the Home Secretary made his name at planning inquiries as a planning silk, it will be well known on both sides of the House, whether by lawyers or those who have taken part in a more amateur capacity, that the way in which the committees under clause 2 are intending to proceed will not obviate the need for detailed and careful scrutiny of complex issues.
  My experience of a Boundary Commission inquiry into a European seat was in July 1988, when the assistant commissioner of the Boundary Commission came to Bodmin and undertook a public inquiry into the future delineation of the Cornwall and Plymouth Euro-seat. A substantial case was put to him for a separate Cornish seat, some of which appears in an excellent book, "The Making of Modern Cornwall". I do not intend to read the whole book to you this evening, Mr. Lofthouse, although some Conservative Members would like me to do so as they could then go off and have a leisurely dinner and come back rather later.
  When that public inquiry took place, there were detailed submissions about the nature of the combined seat of Cornwall and Plymouth with the intention to make it a more sensible seat, delineated by the natural boundary of the River Tamar.
  You, Mr. Lofthouse, may not be fully acquainted with the geography of the far south-west of Britain, but I believe you will know that Cornwall is surrounded by water on three sides. Therefore, it is a comparatively easy seat to set boundaries to on three sides. The difficulty is to identify what should happen on the other side. The inquiry to which I have referred was concerned simply with the submission about that other side. However, the problem in most Euro-constituencies in this country will be far more complex, as there may be three or more lines to draw.
  As the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said, the knock-on effect of some of these decisions will be substantial. However, in the inquiry to which I have referred, we were concerned to show that, although the population might not amount to the normal average for other parts of England, quite separate from Cornwall, the particular historical and geographical identity of Cornwall was such that it made very good sense to have a separate constituency. It would be as big in population terms as others in the European Community and as big as some of those in the north of Scotland.
  Cornwall has a special identity and a great history. We have heard this evening from representatives from other Celtic kingdoms in the United Kingdom. Cornwall is the oldest of the Celtic kingdoms, so history was on our side. In "The Making of Modern Cornwall" the substance of the case made by Cornwall county council, which will demonstrate my thesis that these are very complex arguments, was put in the following terms:
  382
  "Such feelings of loyalty are of a very different order from most counties in England. Indeed, Cornwall is almost an island with natural boundaries fixed by the coastline. It is largely isolated from the rest of the country. It has a strong separate identity with its own history, traditions, customs, language and (to some degree) law and institutions. Many of these attributes are firmly rooted in its Celtic past. It seems anomalous that such a community should not have its own separate voice in the European Parliament."
  It will not surprise you, Mr. Lofthouse, to learn that, being Celts, those of us represented at the inquiry to which I have referred made a very eloquent case for a separate Cornish constituency.
  I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will take my next point to heart. The assistant commissioner at the Boundary Commission was able to balance the strength of the argument against other arguments, including the argument that the employment draw of Plymouth was so important to parts of Cornwall that it formed a natural linkage.
  We know from the earlier debate that representations will be circumscribed simply to written representations. Although representations are important, the real value lies in hearing those representations, testing them and being able to put counter representations in their place.
  It is significant that, with all his experience and expertise, the assistant commissioner, when summing up the case in his report, said:
  "It is to be recalled also that together with the County Council of Cornwall, the views from other democratically elected bodies were virtually unanimous in their opposition. In the result my view is that there is a strong likelihood that the sentiments expressed at the Inquiry upon matters of history, culture, language and other emblems of 'separateness' would be shared by enough people in Cornwall to make this 'geographical consideration' a consideration of weight."
  The assistant commissioner was able to weigh that consideration in that inquiry. I assume that, by a narrow margin, he concluded that the balance was against a separate Cornish constituency because the population in those terms and at that time was substantially lower than the average for other parts of the United Kingdom.
  However, the problem remains and it will be even more stark in the forthcoming exercise. The population of Cornwall is now much closer to the average for other parts of the United Kingdom. What should be done? Should the present constituency remain? That will have to be considered by the committee and no doubt some people will argue for that very strongly. However, there will be a very strong case for arguing that collecting all three existing Plymouth constituencies and keeping them with Cornwall is irrational, because it takes us way over the national average.
  Should one Westminster constituency in Plymouth be detached from that combined constituency? It would surely be extraordinary if that were to happen, and it would fly against all the assurances given by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State that, on the whole, cities will be kept together where possible within the new boundaries.
  An alternative is that Plymouth should look eastwards and be the centre of a new parliamentary constituency. That might make some sense. However, would it be possible for Cornwall alone to match up to the population requirements? Another possibility would be to add west Devon and north Devon to Cornwall. That would present major opportunities for my party, but I set such partisan considerations aside, as you would expect, Mr. Lofthouse. However, there would be some sense to that connection, as

  383
  there would be a more sensible identity of interests, a commonality of interests between the rural areas of west and north Devon with those in Cornwall.
  I hope that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State will respond to the point that the complexity of those considerations in that single example, where Cornwall is a relatively easy case to determine, will be mirrored time and again throughout England.
  Mr. David Rendel: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while in respect of several constituencies an entire county may form the major part of a constituency —and I am thinking of my constituency in particular—odd Westminster parliamentary constituencies may also be added on which may come from several different counties? Does my hon. Friend agree that that will confuse the electorate greatly? Does he accept that considerable consideration will have to be given to decide whether that is a sensible way to combine Westminster parliamentary constituencies into European parliamentary constituencies?
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is entirely right. The original Act to which the Bill refers was, most confusingly, not entitled the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. It was originally entitled the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, but it was subsequently renamed. Paragraph 9 of schedule 2 is relevant to our discussions and it was misunderstood by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) in the earlier debate. Therefore, for simplicity's sake, I will quote that paragraph:
  "In Great Britain—

  (a) each Assembly constituency shall consist of an area that includes two or more parliamentary constituencies; and

  (b) no parliamentary constituency shall be included partly in one Assembly constituency and partly in another."

  Paragraph 10 states:
  "The electorate of any Assembly constituency in Great Britain shall be as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations."
  In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), may I say that it is by no means clear whether geographical considerations mean county boundaries as at present defined, or whether they are county boundaries as they may be defined after the rolling programme of the Local Government Commission has made major changes to the boundary geography of England and Wales. We heard a few minutes ago that the process is already in action in Wales and it is by no means clear from the Bill whether proper regard will be taken of those changes.
  I would like to refer to the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North as the right hon. Member for Oswestry. I gather that he would refer to himself in that way as well. The names that will be given to constituencies will give rise to yet another argument that will be adduced during the process. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North referred to the massive "upheaval" that will be caused by trying to slot in the additional seats in this way. How will this be achieved? What criteria will be used? Will the committees major on identity of interest?
  384
  I know that Hansard cannot see a map, but for aide-memoire purposes—I do not know all the boundaries well—I have brought a map with me. Let me demonstrate my point with one or two simple examples.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order in using a map.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Tyler: If I may refer to the text, it stands on all fours with my notes. I will not show the map to anybody; it is simply to remind me of the very difficult configuration of some boundaries. I shall refer to the names.
  For example, there is the Wight and Hampshire East European constituency, which goes from Aldershot, which I have always regarded as an area of outer London, down to the southern tip of the Isle of Wight, which of course is a very long way from London—a most extraordinary shape. If somebody were to look at that constituency in a committee, he might take the view that there was some identity of interest among the good burghers of Aldershot, who have always made certain that they were represented in the House of Commons by a man of independent views. Whether that is then found to be the case all the way down through Hampshire East, through Havant, Fareham, Gosport, Portsmouth and across Spithead and the Solent to the Isle of Wight is far from clear. In those committees, somebody will make the point that there is no identity of interest, and then somebody will come up with a different proposition.
  I could choose examples from all around the United Kingdom. There will not be just one simple proposition and then a statement of opposition. There will be proposition, modification, and consequences for next door, and there will be people whose political careers hang on those decisions.
  To take one more example, in Dorset there is a constituency called Dorset East and Hampshire West, which includes several present Westminster constituencies, covering North Dorset, Weymouth, Portland, Purbeck, Poole, Bournemouth, East and Bournemouth, West, Dorset, East, Christchurch, New Forest and Romsey, as I read the map. It is extremely complicated. As Christchurch is in the middle, it is politically sensitive. Each of the propositions put to those committees will meet a counter-proposition by people whose livelihoods depend on the way in which the decision goes.
  Without a public inquiry, as was made perfectly clear, it will take longer to look at all the representations and see how they interlock. With the assurances that were given by the Government, clearly it is not the Government's view that there will be a proposition which will be a fait accompli. We have been given all sorts of assurances that that will not be the case. There will be a proper opportunity to look at identity of interest, national boundaries, consistency, continuity and conterminous boundaries with local authorities and Westminster parliamentary constituencies.
  That is a moving target. Although phase 1 of the local government review is now in place but open to objection, there are two, three, four and five still to come in England. There is a long process of change ahead of us. In Wales, as I have mentioned, the process is under way. Without a proper opportunity for scrutiny and challenge, and

  385
  without an opportunity to see the representations made by others, there clearly will not be any consensus of acceptance. That is why clause 2 is so defective.
  The difficulty that the Government will create for itself, the Boundary Commission and the European Parliament is huge. The Home Secretary has airily dismissed concerns about finding people of appropriate talent and experience and people who can give their time. As I said, I am not a lawyer, and I certainly do not aspire to the fees that the Home Secretary used to obtain when he was at the Bar, but clearly the people who will have to adjudicate without coming to a public inquiry will be people of great stature and experience. They will have to clear the decks of all their other commitments, and we all know how expensive that can be. The commitment of time will be great and the costs will be huge.
  Representations, if they are not considered with due care, will of course be open to challenge. There will be legal challenges by some means or another, even if it is to the courts, but presumably there will be access to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
  Mr. Hoon: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument about legal challenge, he needs to look a little more carefully at the Bill, because it precludes legal challenges.
  Mr. Tyler: From legal advice that I have been given, I understand that the Bill precludes some successful legal challenges. I do not think that that means that there will not be attempts to do so. I have not yet had a clear answer. I hope that the Minister of State, Home Office, will tell us whether those committees, as creatures and agents of central Government, will be open to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. If so, as we all know from our experience as Members of Parliament, delays could be legion.
  Had the Home Secretary been prepared to accept the feasibility of public inquiries, that problem could have been removed. That would have been the opportunity to ensure that there was proper discussion which was not open to this objection. The hon. Member for Ashfield is also a lawyer, so I must be careful about what I say about lawyers. However, there is also an opportunity to go to the European Court if it is thought that, by some means or other, the administration of the process does not fulfil the needs of natural justice.
  We have heard much about timetables. Why do we have this clause at all? The legislation could have been introduced within a matter of days of the agreement at the Edinburgh summit. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned that we have been forced to discuss a period of seven weeks. Seven months ago, the legislation could have been before us. Then there might have been a reason for pursuing the recommendations and adding on the opportunity for a public inquiry, but there is no excuse now. It is quite absurd.
  One of the Euro-sceptics, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), suggested that there was a connection with the Maastricht process. That is not true. This matter has nothing to do with the Maastricht process. It is a direct result of the Edinburgh summit. There was no need to await the outcome of the Maastricht discussions in the House of Commons or in the other place.
  Of course, this absurd farrago could have been avoided if we had opted for the simple additionality principle which
  386
  the hon. Member for Lewes sensibly put forward earlier. We need not have had this complicated Bill, or the complications of this clause, if the Government had simply accepted that we could leave the existing Euroconstituencies intact without all this performance and simply apportioned the six new seats on a basis that would bring us into line, in some measure, with proportionality and make sure that our representation in the European Parliament actually reflected the views and the party loyalties of the people of this country.
  Liberal Democrats oppose the Bill on principle, and we will do so until the last stage this evening, but on clause 2 in particular we believe that the Government have effectively argued themselves into a corner. They have said that this is the only way—
  Mr. Rendel: I am amazed to hear what my hon. Friend is saying. I believe that, a while ago, the Government claimed that they wanted to make Great Britain the centre of Europe, in spirit if not geographically. I suppose that not even this Government would claim that, geographically, they could make the United Kingdom the centre of Europe. I thought that, in doing so, they intended to give a lead.
  As I understand it, there is prior agreement that the European Parliament will be elected under a system of proportional representation which is to be agreed among all countries. Is my hon. Friend therefore saying that the Government's attempt to give a lead in Europe in this matter is in fact to make ours the only country which is not going along with that prior agreement? If so, I am amazed that the Government are working in this way, apparently against their decision to make Great Britain the heart of Europe.
  Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend has slightly prejudged a section of my speech, which I shall come to in a moment. He missed an interesting speech earlier in which the hon. Member for Lewes made exactly the point to which my hon. Friend has referred, that sooner or later—I suspect that it will be sooner—the Government and their curiously retrograde Labour supporters must accept a form of representation in the European Parliament that reflects the proportion of support in this country.
  Mr. Hoon: Lest there is any danger of the Committee being misled on this point, may I point out that the treaty of Rome requires a uniform electoral procedure. There is no mention whatever of proportionality in the treaty. I concede that every country other than the United Kingdom has some measure of proportionality in its system, but there is no consistency about any of those systems. Therefore, it is misleading to suggest that anything in the treaty requires the United Kingdom to have a proportional system. It is arguable that every other country could adopt the same system as that of the United Kingdom and still be consistent with the treaty of Rome.
  Mr. Tyler: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because he is still a Member of the European Parliament and would have been there when the vote on this issue was taken on 11 March. I noted that a number of his colleagues in the Labour group in the European Parliament firmly voted with the majority for the adoption of the De Gucht report. I cannot do a quick calculation, but there was a fair number. Incidentally, I noted that there were three members of the Conservative group. By

  387
  the time the hon. Gentleman ceases to be a Member of the European Parliament, the system will be improved by becoming more representative.
  It is our view that clause 2 is a tragically missed opportunity for precisely the reasons that the hon. Member for Lewes set out. It was the opportunity to move forward without any dislocation of the existing relationship between MEPs and their constituents to a system that, while not meeting all the requirements of the treaty of Rome or the debate that took place in the European Parliament in March, nevertheless would put us on course for that better system.
  We need not have any of the gerrymandering that has been referred to this evening. We could have moved in that direction. That is why we believe that clause 2 should not be supported this evening and that we should go for a better system. There is time to do so because, as I said, we would support the simple system advanced by the hon. Member for Lewes as a sensible interim transitional stage.
  Clearly, the Government are totally underestimating the scale of the problems that they will let loose on the new committees by adopting clause 2. The clause is extremely unclear about the rules that will govern the drawing up of boundaries. It is unclear whether the three-person review will redraw all of the boundaries to equalise the size of the European constituencies—excepting Scotland, which is outside the redrawing process to which we are referring —or the committees will simply attempt to fit in the new seats with minimal disruption. That could be difficult to decide in some circumstances, and the consequences could be immense.
  I was in Brussels 10 days ago. Undoubtedly, it will be difficult for Brussels to identify the appropriate areas for various forms of grant support if we muck around with both the local authority boundaries and the European constituency boundaries not in a sensible, co-ordinated way but in a dislocated way. It will be extremely difficult for Brussels to know what is going on in this country, and we may lose more than we have in the past of the financial support that we should be receiving.
  7.45 pm
  As the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North said, there will be dangerous and difficult domino effects all the way up the country as a result of this exercise. For example, if the committees—as would be right in terms of priorities—started in the far south-west, came to sit in the area that I know so well and said, "We must make a change here," the consequences would be immense as they moved up through the country until they eventually ended up somewhere to the north of Berwick-upon-Tweed. It will be extremely difficult to identify precisely how that should be handled.
  The full opportunity to assess the knock-on effects to which the Home Secretary referred in the previous debate cannot possibly be undertaken by the committees. How can they undertake that assessment? It is extremely difficult to imagine how it would be done, even if it were done with the full Boundary Commission doing a proper series of inquiries. It would be impossible to do it by written representation in secret.
  That raises another important question. Previous reviews have always maintained that the equalisation of the population size of the European boundaries—this was
  388
  the case in the interim European constituency review in 1988–89—was the dominant factor in determining boundaries. But, as we all know, if the European parliamentary constituencies committees, undertaking their responsibilities as established by clause 2, are to stick to the dictum of equalising the size of the European constituencies, there is a big question about what will happen when the boundaries have to be redrawn after the next review of the Westminster parliamentary constituencies.
  It is an extremely complex series of arguments. The jigsaw will keep moving. Some hon. Members may remember—indeed, Dame Janet, you may remember this from your schoolteaching days—that wonderful jigsaw that we all used to have with the individual counties coloured differently. Those counties did not seem to change from generation to generation. We could see the ones that our fathers and mothers used when they were at school. However, that has not been the case recently. The constant change of boundaries has meant that the consequences have spilled over into consideration of the boundaries for Westminster parliamentary constituencies and now Euro parliamentary constituencies.
  Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on a third occasion, because he may not be aware of the difficulties that were caused at the recent Newbury by-election by the different boundaries—of which I am very aware. Recently, the county boundaries in our area changed. In some cases, only two houses moved across a county boundary, which caused a completely different polling arrangement to be made for those two houses. In one case, people were voting in a Hampshire county council election on the same day as they were voting in the Newbury parliamentary by-election with a completely different set of boundaries.
  That sort of complication adds not only to the difficulties of the electors in those cases but immeasurably to the cost of running elections of that sort because special arrangements have to be made for a small number of elections simply because not all of the boundaries are changed at the same time.
  Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The partial redrawing of the boundaries for so many different purposes is causing the most immense additional administrative and cost consequences. This will be a considerable addition to the complications of the committees appointed by the Home Secretary.
  In clause 2, it is difficult to see whether this is intended to be a partial redrawing of boundaries to fit in the six new seats or a full-scale review of the whole of the pattern of European constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. It is not the whole of the United Kingdom—I wish it were —but only England and Wales.
  The last four lines of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill are absolutely critical. I quote:
  "The effect of clause 2(5) is that Orders in Council made under the provisions of the Bill will in due course be superseded by Orders in Council made following the next reports of the Boundary Commissions under the 1978 Act."
  This will never stop—it will go on and on. This is the most extraordinary attempt by the Home Secretary to cut a long process short. Those committees are a short cut. Otherwise, it is an attempt to persuade us that this is but another salami cut at how we order boundary revisions.

  389
  The United Kingdom has been in the European Community since 1973. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and the hon. Member for Lewes said earlier, the Government also signed article 138(3) of the treaty of Rome, which provides:
  "The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States. The Council shall, acting unanimously, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
  We all know that member states use different systems, but they all have a standard principle, which is to try to approximate to proportionality. Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal use national list systems; Belgium and Italy use regional list systems; Germany uses a mixture of both; and Ireland uses the single transferable vote. The United Kingdom is the odd one out. It elects using two different systems. Let us not forget that the Government decided in their wisdom that a single transferable vote system was appropriate for Northern Ireland.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Let us not forget, either, that that is not relevant to the clause under consideration.
  Mr. Tyler: That you, Dame Janet. However, you will soon see how relevant that point is. The principal Act to which the clause refers also deals with Northern Ireland, which is why I mention it. Clause 2 will make it even more evident that Britain is making no attempt to move towards a system that represents effectively the proportions of support of the different groups in our electorate. That is why such curious calculations are being made and Members are discussing how chopping off a little here and putting on a little there would be to the party advantage in a particular constituency under the first-past-the-post system. That does not happen under the systems adopted by other countries.
  The clause would distort not only the political representation of this country in the European Parliament but the political balance of the whole European Parliament, and would weaken its authority as a truly representative assembly.
  The Government's excuse for not adopting their part of the bargain is, and has always been, that the European Parliament has not taken a clear lead on that issue.
  Mr. Hoon indicated assent.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) is nodding in agreement. By adopting the De Gucht report by 207 votes to 80 in March, the European Parliament has thrown the decision back into the British Government's lap. Only the British veto prevents an advance. The Belgian presidency, which has just started, has put the issue at the top of its six-month agenda, so clearly a major advance will be made.
  Mr. Hoon: These matters must be placed on the record accurately. Some years ago the European Parliament drew up a proposal for a uniform system and put it to the Council, which has never responded to that proposal. The De Gucht proposal may be misleading the hon. Gentleman, as it does not provide for a uniform procedure. If the Liberal Democrat party advocates a uniform procedure based on the treaty, it needs to explain
  390
  how it will persuade the Irish to adopt the system used in France, for example. Considerable difficulties exist on the continent, too, with the different systems. The Belgian system, for instance, is geared towards the linguistic difficulties there. There is no agreement on the continent about what uniform system should be employed.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) continues, I must warn him against pursuing these general arguments in this clause stand part debate. The clause does not deal with those arguments, and I cannot allow that strain of argument to continue.
  Mr. Tyler: I accept your guidance, Dame Janet. Suffice it to say that, in the context of clause 2, it is surprising that the Labour party has not followed the advice of its own report by Lord Plant on that issue.
  Mr. Allen: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman's throwaway remark pass without comment. The Labour party's position will be decided at our annual conference in the normal democratic way. The Plant committee was established some time ago and reported recently. Professor Plant's proposals for the European Parliament involve a regional list system, which is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a proportional system. The Leader of the Labour party has made his views plain on that matter, but it will be for the Labour party conference to decide on it in October. The hon. Gentleman should reserve his judgment, as we must in the democratic process.
  Mr. Tyler: It is sad that we must all wait for the Labour party conference before we can deal with the Bill.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We do not have to wait for the Labour party conference. We can deal with matters here and now.
  Mr. Tyler: I am delighted to hear that, Dame Janet. This would have to be one of my longer speeches if I had to keep talking until October.
  The kernel of the problem is simply that the Bill provides an opportunity to simplify the process and to move towards a position that we shall have to accept. The hon. Member for Lewes was right to say that we must accept it eventually. Why not take the bull by the horns and adopt a sensible attitude now?
  Writing in The Guardian on 26 June, Martin Kettle said:
  "What an ideal opportunity for the opposition parties to act together in a practical democratic cause in defence of good principle and clean process against a Government whose reputation for probity has all but evaporated. Will it happen? Well, what do you think?"
  The answer is that we must wait until October.
  Mr. Allen: We do not have to wait until October. If Mr. Kettle of The Guardian had been present in the Chamber last night, he would have seen whether a consensus among the Opposition parties was likely. The manner in which the Liberal Democrat party behaved last night was no credit to the parliamentary process.
  Mr. Tyler: It will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, and his great ranks of supporters who should be here to follow him into the Lobby tonight, will vote with us against the Bill on this clause and on Third Reading.

  391
  Clause 2 should have at least set down a system for distributing the six extra seats as a "top-up" reservoir to increase proportionality between the votes cast and the seats won—a sort of rudimentary addition to the one member, one vote system.
  The hon. Member for Lewes, with his long experience in the House of Commons, put the matter much better than me and was perfectly right to do so. He said that it would not have been perfect—nobody can achieve perfection in one fell swoop—but it would have been a great step forward and would have made it possible for the Government to show that they have democratic credentials and intend to be, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, at the heart of Europe in every sense. If that change had been made, it might have been the thin end of the wedge, which some of the dinosaurs in both the larger parties fear.
  Removing clause 2 would not leave a great vacuum, because we could immediately move to the solution that I have been propounding. That would have been a real advantage to the Government, without the need for this complicated Bill or for setting up gerrymandering committees, which have been the subject of so much criticism on both sides of the Committee. Existing members of the European Parliament, representing existing constituencies, would then know that their boundaries would not be changed out of all recognition. The hon. Member for Ashfield has a personal interest in this matter.
  Mr. Hoon: No, I have not.
  Mr. Tyler: There is no reason why proportionality could not have been introduced in the Bill, in time for the 1994 elections, through the adoption of wider geographical areas based on existing Euro-constituency boundaries and the use of either regional lists or single transferable vote. After full consultation, a proper system could then have been in place by 1999.
  On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I invite the House to vote against the motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill. I hope that the House will vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
  8 pm
  Mr. Hoon: I do not intend to speak for nearly as long as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
  I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the purpose and effect of clause 2(6), which states:
  "Any appointment made or other thing done by or in relation to a Committee at the time before the passing of this Act shall be regarded as valid if it would have been valid at that time, had this Act then been in force."
  Why is it necessary to have such retrospective legislation in an Act of Parliament?
  I hope I am not becoming cynical as a result of reading and rereading the Bill, but it can be necessary only if the Government have already appointed people to those committees, and if, to some extent, they are already carrying on their work and taking decisions.
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Committee earlier today, but the Home Secretary not only told us of his intention to make the appointments before the Bill is passed. but informed us
  392
  that certain individuals had been consulted and had indicated their readiness to serve. Their names were not given, but they are clearly identifiable.
  Mr. Hoon: I was in the Committee earlier and heard the Home Secretary speak. According to my recollection, he said that certain individuals had been approached and had indicated their willingness to serve. I do not recall his saying that they had been appointed. It follows that, under the terms of the Bill, if they had been appointed, they would expect to be paid for their services. I am sure that the Minister can deal with this shortly, and can tell us whether they have been appointed and are to be paid before the Act is passed.
  It follows from that analysis of what has occured that the parliamentary process is being at least short-circuited if decisions are already being taken. If they are not, there is no need for this provision. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is a rather curious provision, which should not be necessary.
  If the appointments are to be made as a consequence of the passing of the Bill, I cannot see any necessity for the appointments to be made before Royal Assent. I recognise that the Home Office may wish to ascertain whether individuals are available and willing to serve, but there is no reason why they should be appointed before the legislation is passed. If they have not been appointed and there are no preparatory works under way in pursuit of the legislation, I cannot see why clause 2 (6) is necessary.
  Sir David Steel: Like the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), I was astonished to find clause 2(6) in the Bill. I recall very clearly that when I first came to this place, some time ago, I was firmly told that we had to guard at all times against retrospective legislation. I remember several causes celebres in the late 1960s on this issue. Usually it was accidental retrospective legislation, but this is a blatant piece of retrospective legislation. The House is being invited to pass lines 21 to 24 on page 2 of the Bill, which state:
  "Any appointment made or other thing done by or in relation to a Committee at a time before the passing of this Act shall be regarded as valid if it would have been valid at that time, had this Act then been in force."
  I have never seen a more blatant piece of retrospective legislation.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield has asked for an explanation and if the Minister cannot justify it, he should at least have the good sense to ensure that this offensive clause is removed when the Bill proceeds to another place —although, as my hon. Friend said, we shall attempt to remove the clause this evening.
  The main reason why I believe it is important that we make a stand against the clause is that there is a feeling that the Government, after so long in office, are developing an unhealthy form of parliamentary arrogance. You would rule me out of order, Dame Janet, if I were to discourse about what has been happening north of the border with local government boundaries. No doubt the House will be occupied with that in the next day or two, but it is all part of a picture that the Government do what they like, regardless of the inconvenience to communities, regardless of the cost and regardless of the disruption to the normal electoral procedures, which have been long established and accepted by successive Governments.

  393
  I make no secret of the fact that, when the Edinburgh summit concluded that there would be six extra seats, I went to see a number of Ministers to put to them the proposition that the sensible way to deal with the matter —although, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, it was the official view of my party that all the seats should be elected by some form of proportional representation—was to leave the present Members of the European Parliament undisturbed in their single-Member seats throughout Britain, but to create six additional seats elected on a proportional or regional system. It struck me as a heaven-sent opportunity.
  Part of my argument—which my hon. Friend modestly did not mention—is blatantly party political. It is indefensible that, in the forum of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, a party such as the Liberal Democrats in Britain—which in recent elections has gained from 18 to 25 per cent. of the popular vote, and in European elections have twice gained upwards of 20 per cent.—should be wholly unrepresented. As a matter of natural justice, that cannot be right.
  Our electoral system distorts the balance of the political parties in that Chamber. As others have pointed out, it is quite natural that the other member states which have proportional systems find that the British system not only imposes a distorted delegation of 81 Members on the European Parliament, but, as we have seen in practice from European elections, imposes it at whatever happens to be the political climate at the time when the European election is held. At one time there will be a disproportionately heavy Labour majority because the elections are held at a time when a Conservative Government are unpopular, and at another it will be the other way round. That is an arbitrary way of messing up what is supposed to be a democratic assembly.
  Mr. Rendel: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although we are one of the only parties within the European Liberal Democrat group not represented in the European Parliament, we are one of the best supported in our own country? That makes the situation even more absurd.
  Sir David Steel: My hon. Friend is right.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There cannot be a full-blown debate on proportional representation on the basis of the clause. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
  Sir David Steel: As always, Dame Janet, you are absolutely correct. My argument is simply that, unless we remove clause 2 from the Bill, we cannot open the door to the proposal that I have put to the Government and on which I should like to elaborate.
  The argument is not only that we are unrepresented, but that the Liberal Democratic group in the European Parliament is short of its largest democratic element. That cannot be justified by anyone because it is not natural justice. I put these arguments in my usual moderate and persuasive fashion to Ministers. At first sight, because the proposition was completely new to them—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What would have happened if Lord Owen or another member of the SDP had managed to get into the European Parliament and Liberals had also been elected? How could they have possibly been in the same party?
  Sir David Steel: The answer to that is quite simple. We had an alliance in each of the last three European elections so there would have been no problem at all. The hon. Lady's question is hypothetical because nobody was elected from either party. The hon. Lady is testing your patience, Dame Janet, because we are going wide of the clause to which I am trying to speak. The Liberals, the Liberal Democrats as presently constituted, the old Liberal party before the SDP was formed and the alliance between the two had a substantial body of popular support in each of the European elections. That support was larger than that of many of the parties presently in the European Parliament, but we are wholly unrepresented.
  The hon. Lady may think that that is perfectly all right, that it is tough, too bad. However, most people, and especially those in the other European democracies, think it is a scandal that we should export our distortion. What we do here is up to us: a distorted House of Commons is our decision. I regret that, but what right have we to import that distortion into the Parliament at Strasbourg?
  Ministers listened politely to my arguments, as they always do, and went into their various huddles to ponder the matter. When the decision that is graphically spelt out in clause 2 for the appointment of these extraordinary new committees was announced, one wondered why such a reasonable proposition had been rejected. The only argument that I could find was that this might be the thin end of a wedge.
  We are asked to believe that the nation will be so excited by the possibility that six Members of the European Parliament will be elected by proportional representation that the whole edifice of our electoral system will collapse. Is that a measure of the Government's confidence in our electoral system? It is a ludicrous proposition. There is no connection at all between the general argument for changes in the electoral system in this place and the modest proposal that the Government refuse to accept. Instead, they are leading us through the legislative minefield of clause 2. That is quite indefensible.
  We oppose the clause because it goes against all the established principles and the long-established democratic and independent procedures of Boundary Commissions. That is the fundamental objection to the clause.
  Mr. Rendel rose—
  Sir David Steel: My hon. Friend is agitating again. I shall happily give way to him.
  Mr. Rendel: My right hon. Friend may be slightly misleading the Committee by suggesting that this might be the thin end of a wedge. That must be wrong: Northern Ireland is already the thin end of the wedge.
  Sir David Steel: That is true, but it is the Government who argue that it is the thin end of the wedge. I do not. This "terrible infection" of proportional representation does not appear to have spread across the Irish sea, and I have no reason to think that it will spread anywhere else. I had moved on from that issue and was about to outline the other objections to the clause.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee of any two proportional representation systems on the continent that are the same? My understanding is that they are all different.
  8.15 pm
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman moves to his next point.
  Sir David Steel: In deference to you, Dame Janet, I shall do that, but I may touch on that matter later.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Delicately.
  Sir David Steel: I shall deal with it very delicately and I will not be led astray by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). Thank you for your protection, Dame Janet.
  The clause creates the wholly artificial machinery of the European parliamentary constituency committees. Those committees are not adequately accountable. There is no provision in the clause for any form of public inquiry or consultation. When I was party leader I used to be involved in appointments to the Boundary Commission. The public do not generally realise that there is a secure and safe system for such appointments. We may complain from time to time about the Boundary Commission and its judgments, but the boundary commissioners are appointed in consultation with party leaders to make sure that they are genuinely independent of the Government of the day. That fundamental protection which has always been part of our system is to be swept aside by the clause, because the appointments are to be made directly by the Secretary of State.
  Insufficient time has been allowed for carrying out a thorough review. More than that—here I return to the point eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall—clause 2 is a tragically missed opportunity because it was a ready-made, established possibility of introducing a fair system of voting, at least for the six seats.
  The Government underestimate the scale of the problems that will arise from the clause, which leaves many questions unanswered. It is extremely unclear about the rules that the committees are to follow in drawing up the boundaries. It is also unclear whether the three-person review will redraw all the boundaries to equalise the size of the Euro-constituencies or whether it will attempt to fit in the new seats with minimal disruption. Perhaps the Minister will explain how it will work.
  Will bits be fitted into what my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall rightly described as the jigsaw with minimal disruption, or, as has always been done in the past, will an equalisation rule be applied to the size of European constituencies? That was the dominant factor in determining boundaries in the 1989 interim European constituency review. If the new European parliamentary constituency committees established by the clause stick to the dictum of equalising the size of the Euro-seats, why does the Bill reveal that the boundary commissioners will redraw the boundaries again when they have finished the parliamentary review?
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall made a good case for trying to get some form of cohesive approach to local government reorganisation, parliamentary constituency boundaries and European Parliament constituency boundaries. To have different lines on the map of the kingdom for all three purposes is immensely confusing. It diminishes the nature of individual
  396
  communities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) illustrated in his intervention, it will be extremely costly to administer.
  The disruption caused by such a second review, especially as the clause contains no provision for local inquiries and consultation, will not be welcomed by most of the sitting Members of the European Parliament or by local political parties. We need to know more about the ground rules for the operation of these purely appointed committees. Is it a partial redrawing of boundaries to fit in the six new seats, or is it a full-scale review to equalise the size of the European constituencies?
  My comments are based on the lines of the explanatory memorandum. I am never quite sure whether it is in order to refer to the explanatory memorandum, but it states:
  "The effect of clause 2(5) is that Orders in Council made under the provisions of the Bill will in due course be superseded by Orders in Council made following the next reports of the Boundary Commissions under the 1978 Act".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall argued, we have been in the Community since 1973 and when we signed the treaty of Rome we also signed up to article 138.3.
  Here I take issue with the hon. Member for Ashfield. I have always interpreted article 138 as saying that
  "the European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States".
  However, that phrase is not necessarily the same in law as a uniform system. I would argue that there is quite a lot of scope for flexibility so long as the principles of a uniform procedure are followed.
  The fact that we are the only member state that fails to have any form of proportionality is a direct contravention of article 138.3 of the treaty of Rome.
  The hon. Member for Lancaster asked me earlier about the different systems of proportionality. One could argue that Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal have roughly the same system by using national lists.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Very roughly.
  Sir David Steel: Some countries use regional lists. I was a candidate in Europe—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman looked the wrong way on the road in Rome.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is very well aware that seated interventions are to be deplored. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not dwell again on proportionality, bearing in mind my warning on the last occasion.
  Sir David Steel: I thank you, Dame Janet, for your protection against being led astray by the hon. Lady.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was sitting here doing nothing.
  Sir David Steel: I was just about to give the Committee the benefit of my experience as a candidate under a regional list system, but I suspect, Dame Janet, that I might be trying your patience a little were I to dwell too long on that issue.
  I am familiar with different systems which are perfectly usuable and which are common not throughout the Community, but certainly in more than one country.
  Mr. Tyler: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the excellent system that was promoted by the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, which took additionality and would work extremely well within the confines of the Bill? We could remove clause 2 and put in place the Hansard Society system, which produced additionality on the basis of single-Member constituencies and those who had reached a certain level of support. That system was not open to the objections of party lists to which hon. Members have referred. It was a British version of some of the other systems and had the merit of meeting the requirement to which my right hon. Friend referred, but at the same time gave it that British flavour which maintained the connection between individual constituencies and their representatives.
  Sir David Steel: Not only was that a proposal frorn the Hansard Society, but the author of the De Gucht report, which was approved by the European Parliament, tried to make it as hard as possible for the British Government to reject it. The recommendations in that report allow two thirds of the British MEPs to continue to be elected by first past the post. One cannot say that it is a wholesale derogation from what we in Britain have been used to; they leaned over backwards to provide a system that was consistent with article 138 of the treaty of Rome, yet would meet British feelings and associations—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. My requirements are rather less. I am concerned only that we stick to clause 2.
  Sir David Steel: On the contrary, I am trying to get rid of clause 2 to replace it with something superior.
  I have come to the end of my argument. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) leaps to the Dispatch Box, no speech is complete unless we have had lastly, finally and in conclusion, and I have reached only lastly.
  I end on a serious plea to the Government. I believe that the advantages to the Government in terms of simplicity of legislation and democratic accountability would have been not to proceed with clause 2 but to have gone for the system of adding the six seats in a manner which would be more widely acceptable to the population of Britain, the European Parliament and certainly to members of the Committee.
  Mr. Allen: Is the hon. Gentleman giving way, or has he reached finally, lastly and in conclusion? I should like to address some remarks to their Lordships, who may soon receive the Bill, and also to clause 2.
  It falls to me to address my remarks to clause 2 and to remain in order on the very evening that you, Dame Janet, have been extremely liberal in your approach, so for once I will not stray from the clause under discussion; I have missed my chance. However, I want to put one or two things on record to assist the debate that may take place in the other place on clause 2.
  This afternoon the Home Secretary talked about the seven-week difference between the timetable put forward by the Opposition—a timetable that would accommodate public inquiries—and the timetable that the Government themselves put forward in respect of the conclusion of the process of review and inquiry. Apparently, the seven-week gap has caused the whole project to founder because it has led to the need to have the Bill which is before us tonight.
  398
  In order to assist the debate here and in the other place, I should like to make it plain how we feel. In place of clause 2, there could be a timetable acceptable to just about everybody if they were willing to consider it rationally.
  We would start with Second Reading which was on 30 June; on 2 July there would be consultation over the committees' membership; on 9 July confirmation of committees' membership and on 23 July the committees would determine provisional recommendations. The publication of provisional recommendations would be on 5 August and the final date for representations to the committees would be 19 September. The committees would consider those recommendations on 24 September. Notice of any public inquiries would be on 30 September and public inquiries themselves would be between 25 and 19 October. The assistant commissioners' reports could be submitted by 12 November; committees would determine final recommendations on 26 November and the publication of final recommendations would be on 9 December; therefore, the reports would go to the Home Secretary on 9 December.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Allen: If the hon. Lady will let me finish this point.
  I have listed a timetable which could accommodate a public inquiry. The Government's proposals do not allow for that eventuality, but if goodwill were evident from the Government and, hopefully, in the other place, even now as the Bill goes to the other place, we could create a system by which a public inquiry of the sort with which we are all familiar could take place.
  Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is an incorrigible optimist. He has been present during many debates in the House when people have talked on and on, and having talked on and on, they have talked on and on again. His schedule has public inquiries between 25 and 29 October. How on earth will he persuade public inquiries, faced with people such as those who have been talking in the House and many of their supporters outside, to conclude on 29 October?
  Mr. Allen: Let us be clear: we are talking not about planning inquiries, which can take months, but about inquiries into boundaries. Most conclude within a day, and the top whack is about a day and a half. There is a tradition of a disciplined approach.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They are not disciplined.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Allen: Public inquiries on boundaries conclude promptly and with great discipline. The Home Office timetable is similar to ours in respect of the time it allows for a public inquiry.
  We have a public inquiry so that people can talk and express their opinion, particularly where they feel that their interests as electors are at stake. The timetable makes no provision for revised recommendations. That would be difficult given the timetable constraints. However, provisional recommendations, objections, variations and counter-proposals would be subject to full and proper scrutiny and cross-examination at a public inquiry. The

  399
  committee's secretariat could easily make provisional bookings and arrangements for public inquiries at an early stage.
  Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: With some logic, the hon. Gentleman is supposing that all the people concerned want these elections to take place. Unfortunately, some people do not want them and will do everything they can to obstruct them, to the point where we might find ourselves moving to the next European Parliament without extra seats, because there will have been no election.
  Mr. Allen: Indeed. I do not wish to make a partisan point, but the biggest delay has been the 32-week delay since the Edinburgh conference. It has taken that long to bring the Bill before the House. Even on the Home Secretary's logic, had seven of those weeks been used to bring forward this Bill, we would be discussing a Bill not on European parliamentary constituency committees, but on a Boundary Commission, empowered to have public inquiries and do the job properly. The hon. Lady should exercise some care in attributing blame for delay.
  The wording of our amendment, which has now been defeated, provided scope for the committees to
  "have regard to Paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act".
  Thus, they would not be bound to hold a public inquiry on an objection from a principal local authority or more than 500 electors if it appeared that the objection was frivolous or if no viable counter-proposal or variation was being suggested. Our timetable is not designed to promote public inquiries, but simply to allow them where there is a genuine need. Let us not forget that we are talking about a maximum of 10 public inquiries for England and one for the other nations of the United Kingdom.
  A meeting between the new committees on appointment with representatives of those political parties represented in Parliament for the respective part of the United Kingdom could take place. They could discuss the timetable, advance notice to parties, the format of public inquiries and, within England, any scope for considering the review within defined regional areas for the purposes of provisional recommendations and inquiries.
  I shall make a final point for their Lordships who may discuss this at a later stage. If the wording of the amendment is the problem, there would be no objection to the Government using their own wording or to any Member of the other place tabling an appropriately worded amendment. That would be a useful job for the second Chamber to perform.
  We believe that, even when the Bill goes to the second Chamber, if there is good will from the Government, there will still be time to allow a full public inquiry of the sort that we have been used to in this country for 50 years in our parliamentary elections and for the last two European elections. Despite the fact that we, in this House, have not taken the opportunity to assist the Government towards a sensible timetable, I hope that their Lordships will take that opportunity when it arises in the near future.
  Mr. Maclennan: Throughout these debates, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has made it plain that the Labour party takes the view that a conventional approach to the allocation of new seats to the European Parliament would be possible and practical. What I have not heard so clearly is whether it would regard
  400
  that as desirable. In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member drew attention to the advice that his party had received, and the support for that advice offered by Lord Plant and given by the leader of the Labour party, that what is proposed in the Bill should be supplanted by another system of election. It seems that the only impediment to the hon. Gentleman saying that clearly from the Front Bench is that the Labour party has not taken a formal decision in conference on the issue.
  Mr. Allen: If it will help the hon. Gentleman, I should be pleased to put the position as clearly as I can. The Plant commission, established by the Labour party to look into electoral systems, proposed, as one of its many recommendations, a system of proportional representation—the regional list system—for the European Parliament. Its report said:
  "Such a system could be introduced by an incoming Labour Government for the 1999 elections at the earliest."
  That report was sent to our national executive committee. On 19 May the leader of the Labour party stated:
  "The Committee concludes that different elected bodies can be chosen by different electoral systems. That is a view which I share and I support the proposals made both for a reformed Second Chamber and the European Parliament. The proposal on the European Parliament sensibly recommends consistency of voting for the one election that we share with other members of the European Community."
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a final and binding decision for any political party has to he taken through the appropriate channels. The Labour party's annual conference will make that decision in October. Thereafter, our policy may be different. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the context in which those comments have been made.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to clarify the position. We can take it from what he said that his objections to the line that has been consistently set by my right hon. and hon. Friends throughout the debates is not one with which he takes issue. He has explained that he thinks that it is practical to build into the existing Bill a conventional approach to the election of Members of the European Parliament, following historical practice.
  In a detailed way, he has set out the timetable that would enable that to take place. He has not set his face against the alternative proposal in place of clause 2, which has been advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), in respect of its practicality or its principle. I believe that the Labour party may—
  Mr. Allen: If my party is to commit itself to a different policy, it must be done according to the appropriate means that we have devised. In the interim, however, it would be unusual if we were to adopt a dog's breakfast of a system that is largely first past the post, with six seats elected under a different system bolted on to it. If we are to change the system, it must be done properly and, we hope, with a wider consensus, even across the Chamber, about future elections, particularly the one in 1999. It would be premature to make changes now, and it would result in confusion, which would not assist the hon. Gentleman's case.
  Mr. Maclennan: The House will recall what the Home Secretary said about how he viewed these matters. The

  401
  De Gucht agreement, which united parties across the Community, including some British Conservatives, proposed a uniform system of proportional representation, leaving it free to member states to adopt their preferred option. The Home Secretary said that he intended to exercise a veto on that consensus—a decision that we found quite shocking and which must lead us to doubt whether it is reasonable to look to the Government to make progress in a consensual way. There has been no evidence that the Government have sought consensus.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has been reaching out to the Government, trying to see whether there is common ground on which the Labour party can stand with the Government—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that I shall not have to give a further warning about using the clause as a platform for debating wider issues than should be dealt with under the clause stand part debate.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful for your advice, Dame Janet. When I spoke at some length on clause I stand part, I am happy to say that I was not once subject to any advice. I hope I will not cause you to have to intervene again.
  My reasons for opposing clause 2 are intimately linked with what will replace it if we are successful in deleting it. That, I believe, is procedurally appropriate to delineate and I do not wish to animadvert to matters that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall discussed with such lucidity, commanding the support of the Benches behind and around them. It would be supererogation for me to seek to surpass their eloquence.
  We must recognise that this extraordinary clause is not in the traditions of best British democratic practice, but some may argue that, when making constitutional innovations there is no need to seek consensus. In fact, I suppose, historically it is true that many of our constitutional changes have been introduced in the teeth of the most fierce opposition—the Ballot Act 1872, the widening of the franchise and other matters.
  Let us be in no doubt that clause 2 is a major constitutional innovation. Many people outside take the view that it is undesirable to take such a step without the consent of all political parties in the House, yet that is what the Government are asking us to do. They are asking us to accept the unilateral imposition of a system of delineation that is untraditional and clearly flawed in that it does not allow for proper argument on the appropriate boundaries.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Allen: I wish to reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Were we in September or October, looking to European elections in June 1994, clearly it might be necessary, having wasted more weeks, to obtain some cross-party support for an emergency procedure that might even forgo public inquiries. I should have thought that, in those circumstances, all parties would be understanding, but in the current circumstances that does not apply because there is still time to institute a proper timetable with a full public inquiry. That is still on offer to the Government, which may explain their reluctance to promote the scheme.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.
  The Home Secretary announced, before hearing any of the arguments, that he took the view that we should have a system for the delineation of seats that would impose a constitutional novelty on the country. He tried to explain to us that he thought it should be regarded as comparable to the Boundary Commission. The debate since then, little of which the Home Secretary has heard, has shown how far removed from the normal Boundary Commission procedure these set-up committees are. He talked about Boundary Commission membership being by agreement. Where is the agreement? Far from there being any agreement, we learn that this procedure will be imposed retrospectively under clause 2(6).
  I do not want to prolong the debate. I regard the clause as a constitutional enormity that the House should reject out of hand, and I hope that the upper House will take on board the strength of feeling that has been expressed by Opposition Members and a number of Conservative Members. There has been an overwhelming wish to reject the Bill and I hope that the upper House will recognise that and do the right thing.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If we could guarantee that everyone was united in wanting us to have our fair share of the new additional Members of the European Parliament, it might be sensible to try to squeeze in public inquiries. Unfortunately, whatever the Opposition may say, we simply cannot guarantee that. Some hon. Members and some people outside, no doubt egged on by those hon. Members, do not want any more Members of the European Parliament and so could drag out proceedings at public inquiries and cause us to lose the extra seats. The elections would have come and gone and we would have lost the chance of the extra seats. The United Kingdom would therefore—
  Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.
  The United Kingdom would therefore be underrepresented, which I would regard as a great mistake. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would like that. I think that he genuinely believes that these few days would be sufficient.
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Sit down. It is therefore essential that we reject—
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I also expect gentlemanly conduct. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) knows full well that, if the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, he must resume his seat.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I shall respond briefly to specific points and not to the general arguments, against which you have warned us sternly, Dame Janet, especially as the latter have been aired several times in previous debates.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made three points. First, the future shape of the Cornish Euro-constituency and every other Euro-seat is entirely a matter for the independent boundary committees, not for

  403
  me. The committees will have to follow the criteria of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, which the hon. Gentleman related.
  Let me repeat them for greater clarity: the Boundary Commission and the boundary committees, under the same rules, must produce Euro-constituencies which consist of a minimum of two parliamentary constituencies. There must be no overlap between parliamentary constituencies, and the Euro-constituency must be as near as possible to the quota, which means that it must be as near as is reasonably practicable having regard, where appropriate, to the special geographical considerations of the region. Under those criteria, it is entirely a matter for the independent committees.
  Secondly, the committees are not of course subject to the parliamentary commissioner but, like every other public body, they are liable to challenge in the courts. Only the order approved by both Houses is exempt from such a challenge, which is standard Boundary Commission legislation. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it has been right in the past, and it is right now.
  Mr. Tyler: The Minister is now admitting that the announcement, the fiats of the so-called independent committees, can be open to challenge in the courts, or judicial review. Does he therefore accept that there could be substantial delays when it is found that there will be no democratic base for open discussion and debate at a public inquiry for the fiats?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not admitting anything; I am telling the hon. Gentleman what is perfectly clear from a cursory reading of the Bill. Like any other public body or institution, the committees are open to review by the courts. The only things that are not are orders passed by the two Houses.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister mentions orders of the House, but is he satisfied that such orders are not subject to the courts if they contravene the treaties and therefore may not be in accordance with European Community law? Is he satisfied that any legislation passed by the House can override European Community law?
  Mr. Lloyd: Great care is taken to ensure that any legislation passed by this House is on all fours with European Community law and with our obligations.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister is surely aware of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which sought to deal with ships flying flags of convenience. Spanish vessels were taking British quotas and flying the British flag but they were essentially Spanish vessels. The Act was overturned by the Factortame case, not only in the House of Lords which queried it but by the European Court. In this Session, Parliament had to introduce legislation to undo the effect of the 1988 Act. Can the Minister guarantee that what we are passing tonight will not be overturned by a subsequent ruling of the European Court?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am certain that what we are passing tonight—and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we are passing it—is on all fours with the law and our obligations and will not be overturned by any court.
  I deal now with the third issue raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. After redrawing the
  404
  parliamentary boundaries, the Boundary Commission will have to review the Euro-boundaries in the usual way. The Boundary Commission is properly required by statute to review Euro-boundaries after every general review of parliamentary boundaries. Not to do so would leave us with the real problems of overlap about which several hon. Members have complained.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) drew my attention to clause 2(6). The intention is to enable the committees to start work straight away. Amendment No. 23, for which the hon. Gentleman voted, was posited on the assumption that the committees would start work almost immediately and, in order for them to start immediately, that subsection must be included. The timetable mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) relies on the committees starting work straight away, but the hon. Gentleman wanted to wait until after Royal Assent, which may not be granted until the spillover period, thereby losing two or three months in which the committees could be working and hearing the representations that people will undoubtedly make on its provisional recommendations which we hope will be ready by the beginning of August. They could not possibly be ready by the middle of August if we were to accept the suggestion to remove clause 2(6).
  Mr. Hoon: The Minister says that he wants the committees to start work immediately, but does he mean tomorrow or next week? When are the appointees going to take up their posts—or have they already started their work?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course they have not started their work, because we shall not appoint them until we have consulted leaders of Opposition parties. We have said that we are trying to secure the services of members of the Boundary Commission. We have gone a long way towards achieving that.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way on that point, because I have made it perfectly clear.
  Mr. Foster: Will the Minister give way on the matter of consultation?
  Mr. Lloyd: Very well, I give way on that matter.
  Mr. Foster: I understood the Minister to say that no decision about membership would be made until there had been consultation with leaders of Opposition parties. Will he assure me that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will be consulted before any decisions are made?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have met representatives of the Liberal party to discuss our approach. If the leader of the Liberal party would like to be party to our conversations he can. Consultation is intended to make known the names of those whom we are considering appointing, and we shall of course do that before final letters of appointment are sent. I have understood from all the parties that if the committees are to be set up—whether or not they like the idea of committees—members of the Boundary Commission are the most suitable people to appoint.
  Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: Very briefly.
  Mr. Allen: The Minister is currently going through the consultation process on the membership of the committees. Equally, the work programme timetable laid out by his Department will roll on until and including Royal Assent. I am sure that the Minister would not wish anyone to get the impression that people are waiting until Royal Assent to start work. I raise that point only to make matters absolutely clear for the benefit of their Lordships, who will be aware that work will be going on as they debate the issue.
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I have made that fact clear already, and amendment No. 23, which the hon. Gentleman supported, assumed that that would happen. That is why it was absurd for the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) to say that this was the worst example of retrospective legislation that he had seen. The legislation is not retrospective at all in any normal meaning of that term—that is, it does not change the legality of a past action. The provision merely confirms that the current absence of the legislation from the statute book cannot be used later to argue that something perfectly valid that the committee does now became invalid when the Bill was enacted. That is the reverse of restrospective legislation, which is a particular reason, among the others that I have explained, why the House should allow clause 2 to stand part of the Bill.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 220, Noes 34.

  Division No.324]

  [8.59 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Ancram, Michael

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bates, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Beggs, Roy

  Duncan, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Evennett, David

  Bowis, John

  Faber, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bright, Graham

  Forman, Nigel

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Fry, Peter

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gallie, Phil

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gorst, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Congdon, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  406

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hague, William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Harris, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Richards, Rod

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Hendry, Charles

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hicks, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Horam, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Sackville, Tom

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Sims, Roger

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hunter, Andrew

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jack, Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Key, Robert

  Spring, Richard

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sproat, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knapman, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Stephen, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stern, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Stewart, Allan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Streeter, Gary

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sykes, John

  Legg, Barry

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Thomason, Roy

  Luff, Peter

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Maclean, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

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

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Madel, David

  Trimble, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Trotter, Neville

  Malone, Gerald

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mans, Keith

  Waller, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Ward, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Watts, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Whitney, Ray

  Milligan, Stephen

  Whittingdale, John

  Mills, Iain

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Willetts, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Wilshire, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wood, Timothy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Norris, Steve

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Alton, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, Bob

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dafis, Cynog

  407

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Rendel, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Salmond, Alex

  Harvey, Nick

  Simpson, Alan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Terry

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wallace, James

  Loyden, Eddie

  Welsh, Andrew

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mahon, Alice

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Paul Tyler.

  Marek, Dr John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Cryer: The Bill should not be given a Third Reading without a few comments being made. The previous stages have been whipped through with far too much haste. Unfortunately, although one cannot question this issue, there has not been a wide range of amendments, which would have been useful. I wanted, for example, to discuss the costs of MEPs. Unfortunately, my amendment was not selected. That is a matter of regret, but it is out of my hands.
  Adding to the number of MEPs does not necessarily mean greater democracy. The Assembly in Strasbourg is still a consultative assembly. It has not been given legislative powers. Legislative powers in the Common Market are still in the hands of the Council of Ministers, which meets in secret. There is no public scrutiny. Legislation is administered by unaccountable, appointed Commissioners. The idea that there has been an increase in democracy is wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "The gravy train."] Some Conservative Members, who will not speak on the Bill, but who like to chatter in a sedentary position, which is disgraceful, talk about a gravy train.
  I have set my face against any gravy train. I have taken a cut in income to come to this place because I think that the House is relevant to the interests and aspirations of the people of the United Kingdom. The Common Market Assembly has little, if any, relevance. I question whether we should spend several million pounds over five years on extra Members. The Liberal Democrats are to call a vote on Third Reading because the legislation does not provide for proportional representation. I would oppose it even more vehemently if it did.
  I shall vote against the Bill because it is not necessary. The legislation will add to the panoply that is called the Common Market. It has been a millstone around our neck since this country joined. Following the recent meeting of Common Market Heads of State, I asked the Prime Minister what were the benefits of our membership of the Community. An unaccustomed silence falls on the gathering when that topic is raised. The Prime Minister's reply was that Britain exported a lot of goods to the Common Market. The truth is that the other countries export more to us than we do to them. If Britain was not
  408
  in the Common Market, the remaining member states would give us trading concessions because they would want to keep a lucrative and expanding market.
  Our membership of the Common Market has not benefited us. That is why I will vote against the Bill. The legislation will give credence to the Common Market, which has been a huge millstone around our neck. Our membership has cost Britain £2·5 billion a year, and has cost each family £18 a week for the extra food costs created by the Common Market.
  The problems of the Common Market have not been solved. The so-called reforms achieved by the Government have cost the taxpayer more. Of that £2·5 billion, 70 per cent. still goes down that huge drain on resources called the common agriculture policy. The food mountains still exist. The whole creaking edifice of the Common Market should be attacked for what it is—a bureaucrats' delight. It is not about nations coming together. Nations could come together without the MEPs and the so-called Parliament in Strasbourg. We come together as nations when we need to; we do so, for example, through a superior organisation called the United Nations.
  Mr. David Harris: If the hon. Gentleman so despises the European Parliament, or assembly as he calls it, why on earth did he sit in it for five years and join the gravy train that he is denouncing?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Cryer: I intend to answer as soon as Conservative Members stop chanting and give me a chance to be heard. Something should be done, Madam Speaker, about the noise from sedentary positions.
  I was selected by the Labour party EC committee in Sheffield on the basis that I was opposed to the Common Market. It wanted someone who would not be seduced by the gravy trains and the wining and dining that go on in the Common Market. There is no doubt that the amount of money that is showered on MEPs tends to warp their judgment. After a while, people say, "Although I was critical, it is not so bad after all."
  That did not happen to me. I remained true to the principle of opposition to the Common Market. My election address said that clearly. That was Labour party policy at that time. It was a sensible policy, and I regret that the Labour party has now shifted to acceptance of the Common Market.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must point out that this is the Third Reading of a Bill, and not a general exposition of the rights or wrongs of the European Community.
  Mr. Cryer: I shall vote against the legislation, because I do not believe that any extra MEPs are necessary. I am told that, if the Bill is defeated in this legislature, it will cause repercussions throughout the Common Market. I take great pleasure in that thought. If it causes chaos that is even greater than the chaotic organisation that already prevails, that will he to our advantage.
  I intend to vote against the Bill for entirely different reasons from those of the Liberal Democrats. I shall vote against extra people being sent to the Common Market. MEPs serve no useful purpose. It is true that for some people the European Parliament is a useful job creation scheme, but I see no possibility of adding to the democracy or, indeed, desirability of that.

  409
  The Westminster Parliament is the institution whose democracy we must improve. It is understood by people outside. This Parliament should be the focus of our attention. This Chamber and this Parliament are the means by which we shall reverse the dreadful excesses of the past 14 years when we get a Labour Government. That is our aim and intention. That must be our first priority. It should not be the nonsense of the Common Market.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 31.

  Division No. 325]

  [9.20 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Amess, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forman, Nigel

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bates, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  Gallie, Phil

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Booth, Hartley

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bowis, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hague, William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Harris, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butterfill, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Horam, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Couchman, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knox, Sir David

  Dunn, Bob

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  410

  Legg, Barry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lidington, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, David

  Sproat, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thomason, Roy

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trimble, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waterson, Nigel

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Richards, Rod

  Willetts. David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Sackville, Tom

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Mahon, Alice

  Barnes, Harry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Rendel, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Salmond, Alex

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Simpson, Alan

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cryer, Bob

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Tyler, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Wallace, James

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wray, Jimmy

  Lewis, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Mr. Simon Hughes and

  Loyden, Eddie

  Mr. Don Foster.

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Fishing Industry (Decommissioning)
  9.32 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
  That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993 (Si., 1993, No. 1345), dated 25th May 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
  I shall begin by sharing with the House some words in a recent report by the European Court of Auditors on former decommisioning schemes. For me, the words sum up clearly the problems that we are facing in fisheries management. It said:
  "It must be said that since the CFP was instituted the technological changes in the fishing sector have been so big that catch and detection facilities have now reached such a level of perfection that the traditional balance between fishing and resources has been destroyed. Any resource can now be located and exploited with an efficiency that has never been known in all the time that man has been exploiting fish resources."
  That is backed up by some cold hard facts on the state of the United Kingdom's fishing stocks. Comparing 1992 with 1989, the spawning stock of North sea cod was down by 30 per cent., that of North sea haddock was down by 12 per cent., that of west of Scotland cod was down by 14 per cent., that of Irish sea cod was down 32 per cent., and that of Celtic sea cod down by 65 per cent. Overall, our scientists advise that all stocks in United Kingdom waters are vulnerable.
  It is important to see the debate in the context not just of the pressure of fishing stocks in the United Kingdom but of news from Canada, carried today in the Financial Times, which brings home to us, all too bleakly, what happens when capacity is not limited.
  The east coast fishery in Canada has been devastated in recent years with the entire removal of its northern cod stocks. As a result, that fishery had to be closed for two years and 20,000 fishermen and plant employees were put out of work. In summing up, the Canadian authorities said:
  "the necessary drastic reductions in fishing mortalities can only be achieved by substantially decreased fishing effort and these reductions need to be permanent."
  That gives a clear indication of why we should be discussing this decommissioning order today.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: I will give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden).
  Mrs. Ewing: The common fisheries policy is a key aspect of the European Community. Does the Minister agree that that policy was based on the idea that the Spaniards should not have access to the North sea until the next century, but that has been brought forward as a result of the actions of this Government and at the expense of Scottish fishermen? Does he also accept that the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992, as it currently stands, is a distinct disadvantage to our men, their families and communities?
  Mr. Jack: It grieves me to hear the hon. Lady asking me a question when she clearly has not read the recent Hansard report of my statement following the Fisheries
  412
  Council in Luxembourg. If she had read my statement and had seen reports of what happened at that Council in Luxembourg, she would realise that the United Kingdom Government were in the lead in fighting for the parts in the accession treaty in respect of Portugal and Spain to be honoured, but only in the context that there would be no increase in fishing effort.
  If the hon. Lady had read those reports, she would be aware of our efforts to ensure that our fishermen would not be disadvantaged in that respect. The United Kingdom Government could not have been in the lead in respect of Spain and Portugal because those countries were arguing their own cases. I will deal with the other aspects of the hon. Lady's question after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown.
  Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that a substantial number of responsible fishermen accept that conservation is necessary? They understand and are aware that we are in danger of eliminating fish stocks around our coasts. However, instead of following the path that is being proposed, would it not be far better to reduce the mesh size of the nets—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, increase them."] Well, at least that makes it easier for the fish to get away. I got there in the end. My hon. Friend the Minister knows exactly what I mean.
  Would it not be better to increase the mesh size, as that would allow fish to get away? That would have an effect on catches for one year. However, in the longer term, that would be of enormous benefit to the fishing industry in this country and to the continent as a whole.
  Mr. Jack: If we were simply debating conservation, my hon. Friend would have a point. In fairness to the fishing industry, it has taken certain measures and our one-net rule lends itself to the point that my hon. Friend was making. One chooses an appropriate net size according to the species one wishes to catch.
  I must inform my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown that, in concert with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, we are carrying out a conservation exercise which will take into account the points that my hon. Friend has made. He is right, but his point does not sadly address the essential issue of the scheme, which deals with decommissioning and its contribution to meeting the targets of our multi-annual guidance programmes which are expressed in terms of tonnage.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The information that I heard from the previous Fisheries Council is exactly contrary to what the Minister is saying. That information is that the British Government, under pressure, presumably from the Foreign Office which always looks to give way on these matters, devoted their time to consumer matters and to opposing any restriction on imports from outside the EEC, and the Commission blithely assumed that the Spanish and Portuguese demands, which are basically for access to the North sea and the Irish sea in particular from 1996, will be granted. That is not so, to the extent that the Irish Minister had to come over and harangue our civil servants for not backing Ireland in opposition to that.
  Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman spent less time sowing seeds of discontent and misinformation and more time reading Hansard, he would know the facts. He was not

  413
  sitting in a Fisheries Council in Luxembourg last week, as I was, supporting the Irish Minister. We needed no persuasion about the need to stick to the strict terms of the treaty and the accession arrangements for Spain and Portugal. We need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about defending the interests of Britain's fishermen.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree—this point goes to the very heart of the matter—that no matter what debates there might be about the various theories of conservation, fishermen and the public need to be reassured about whether measures taken as a whole put our fishermen at a greater disadvantage than their EC counterparts? Will my hon. Friend say something about that?
  Mr. Jack: I am certainly very determined that Britain's fishermen should not be put at a disadvantage. I will certainly insist that other member states are as effective as possible in taking steps to achieve their multi-annual guidance programme target. My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important point.
  Many people in the British fishing industry are deeply concerned that our continental competitors are not doing what they should on enforcement. We fought long and hard in the recent Fisheries Council to ensure that the new control regulation, which, for the first time, includes independent and random inspection by Community inspectors of other people's inspection systems, was brought into force. We want that greater transparency, greater openness and greater knowledge in enforcement of the common fisheries policy. Our fishermen deserve that protection, and we are fighting for it.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister knows that this decommissioning package was initially contingent on the days-at-sea legislation. I understand that the Minister is about to change tack on the days-at-sea legislation. Will he tell us what that change of course is? Is it a genuine change of mind, or is it merely a delay in implementation? I do not want to write the hon. Gentleman's speech, but could he refer to that information, which is of enormous concern to all hon. Members with fishing constituencies?
  Mr. Jack: Let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman. He is the last person whom I would ask to be my speechwriter. I sail dinghies. Any changes in tack depend on which way the wind is blowing. So far, it is not blowing from a very propitious quarter.
  Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important factor in the debate is getting down to some more of the facts, rather than the fiction that appears to be regularly peddled by Fishing News? It misinterprets everything that is done and greatly alarms fishermen. Has my hon. Friend joined that newspaper's rogues' gallery of the ones that got away, by suggesting that trawlers in his constituency are affected by the regulations? It would be a change if that journal stuck to the truth rather than spread mayhem, lies and distortions.
  Mr. Jack: Fishing News is a lively journal. It has picked out my hon. Friend's constituency with its three trawlers and my constituency with one trawler. If that is the way that those who pay for such advertisements wish to proceed, so be it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Jack: If hon. Members will forgive me for a moment, I shall not give way. I wish to make a little progress. I want to debate the order or you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might rule that I am straying too far from decommissioning.
  I was discussing Canadian fish stocks. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be convinced by my arguments. Those are very good reasons indeed why we must control the overall fishing effort. But to achieve that, we already have in place measures such as total allowable catches and quotas, but, by themselves, they are not able to do the job that we require.
  The only sure way to conserve fish stocks and thus ensure the long-term future of the industry is to have less fishing. The industry accepts the need for conservation, but the perspective of the individual fisherman is somewhat different. For him, there is no incentive voluntarily to limit his fishing effort or to see that such an approach is fair and effective. He needs a guarantee that such actions are being applied collectively.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait rose—
  Mr. Jack: I should like to make a little progress.
  That is why Governments throughout the world have taken responsibility for the conservation of fish stocks for the good of their fishing industries and the European Community has agreed multi-annual guidance programmes with targets for capacity reduction and limiting effort, which all member states must achieve by the end of 1996.
  That is why, in February 1992, the Government announced a package of conservation measures aimed at reducing fishing effort—in other words, the number of fish caught—including changes to the licensing regime, the £25 million decommissioning scheme and, indeed, the days-at-sea restrictions.
  I shall say more on that last point, but I want to focus on decommissioning, which is a key element of the package.
  Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend referred to the need for fishermen to be reassured about their future. He will know that the wives of the fishermen in Hastings are marching through the town tomorrow and presenting a petition showing their worry about the future. Can he give me the reassurance that they seek—that the fishermen will not be facing unemployment and hardship, which is as they currently see it?
  Mr. Jack: The message that my hon. Friend can give to the wives of her fishermen is that they have a Member of Parliament who is assiduous in the way that she has supported their interests. She campaigns for the interests of the fishermen in that part of the world—[Interruption.] The noise is coming from the other side of the House. It is coming from Labour Members, who had no words about fishing or decommissioning in their manifesto, and SNP Members, whose sole contribution in their manifesto was to say that fishing was 10 times more important in Scotland than in England. They are the ones who are making the noise. It is the voice of my hon. Friend that is important.
  One way of achieving less fishing effort is to have fewer vessels and that is the objective of the decommissioning scheme.
  Mr. Elliot Morley rose—
  Mr. Jack: I shall make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that, with regard to the fairness with which debates should be conducted, the Minister should acknowledge that the scheme applies to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Scotland. He should give way at least once to my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Jack: There will be plenty of time for hon. Members to intervene, because I have a lot more material to go through. I wish to get on the record the subject of the scheme. I am sure that other hon. Members will have their chance to speak. I want to finish this passage and then I will give way.
  The scheme has the potential to reduce the United Kingdom fleet by about 10,000 to 12,000 tonnes and make a contribution to our MAGP target of at least 5 per cent. but that approach cannot be the whole story, because decommissioning alone could simply result in the remaining vessels fishing harder and, therefore, maintaining pressure on the scarce fish stocks. In proposing this decommissioning scheme, we had to think long and hard.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: It will not go down well in Northern Ireland that the Minister has gone out of his way to ignore Northern Ireland Members this evening. We were not howling at what the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) was saying. We were howling because she voted against the interests of her fishermen throughout the earlier stages of the Bill. I simply want to ask the Minister whether this is—[Interruption.] The Minister is not listening. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I shall get on with it in my own time with the permission of the Deputy Speaker and not because of Conservative Members' comments from a sedentary position.
  The scheme that we are asked to approve applies to British fishing vessels—those of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—but not to those from elsewhere in the European Community. It discriminates against the interests of the British fishing industry. [HON MEMBERS: "Silly."] It is not a matter of being silly.
  As the fish in the Irish sea do not recognise the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, how can 1, as a constituency Member for Northern Ireland, tell my fishermen that their vessels should be tied up in port while the southern Irish fishermen are free to catch the fish which my fishermen should be allowed to catch on equal terms, if the common fisheries policy is to be equal?
  Mr. Jack: I had hoped that we might have a more sensible intervention after all that shouting. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that every country in the Community has signed up to the system of the multi-annual guidance programme—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) waves his hands, but those are the rules of the game by which we are playing. Other member states have also decided to have their own decommissioning schemes to achieve that target. The scheme is not discriminatory. The targets exist for everybody to achieve and it is up to individual member
  416
  states to determine how to achieve them and have their scheme agreed with the Commission. I have outlined our policy.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: No, I must make some progress. My hon. Friend must be patient for a moment because I have not yet given way to the hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).
  The Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office were highly critical of the previous decommissioning scheme. It gave poor value for money and some vessels rejoined the fleet simply to claim grant. The scheme was inflexible and had no specific objectives. More recently, the European Court of Auditors has made similar criticisms of the schemes operated by other member states.
  In spite of large sums of money having been spent on decommissioning schemes, the impact on effort was negligible. Many of the vessels decommissioned were small and not fishing much, and there were no limits to prevent the rest of the fleet from fishing more intensively or new vessels from joining the fleet. Belgium, the Netherlands and Greece had decommissioning schemes, but, like the United Kingdom, they did not achieve their multi-annual guidance programmes.
  Mr. Steen: The whole House should be grateful for the effort and energy that my hon. Friend the Minister is putting into wrestling with a difficult problem faced by this country.
  Is it possible for us not to implement the scheme until the other European countries have similar arrangements? If we could delay implementation until all the other European countries had similar legislation in place, it would be a level playing field, or a calm sea. The most important contribution that the Government could make to the debate is not to enforce the scheme until the other European countries are doing exactly the same and there is cross-border enforcement.
  Mr. Jack: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot undo what the House has agreed in terms of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967. However, I reiterate to my hon. Friend that the most important aspect of the new control regulation is that it will try to ensure that everybody plays by common rules. Our fishing industry seeks that important reassurance, and we shall continue to do all that we can to ensure commonality of enforcement of that policy.
  The task of Opposition Members who criticise the Bill is to tell the House what they would do—how they would meet our multi-annual guidance programme, if not by decommissioning. If they say that this scheme is too little, too late, they must tell us how much they would spend, where they would "get the money from and what impact it would have on the fishing industry. It is easy to criticise, but more difficult to be constructive.
  As I have indicated to my hon. Friends, the manifesto of the official Opposition did not contain a word about fishing. That is how much they have cared.
  Mr. Morley: I think that the Minister's brief is a bit inadequate. The reason why there was not a word in our manifesto was that we dedicated a detailed policy document to the fishing industry, which I launched at

  417
  Tynemouth during the general election. Rather than calling on the Opposition to say what we would do to deal with the problem, the Minister should get to the point and tell us whether he is going to improve this rather feeble decommissioning scheme.
  Mr. Jack: In the interests of greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy of the document, the so-called document "Marine Harvest"—a product of the home-produced word processor industry beloved of the Labour party. It is a thin diet and hardly -worth a read; it contains no facts and no quantifiable proposals.
  Our facts on the decommissioning scheme were contained in our manifesto. That shows just how much in-depth research that the Opposition do.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jack: No, I want to make some progress. I want to put on record how we will spend £25 million on our decommissioning scheme.
  I praise my predecessors for the efforts that they have made in fighting the Treasury to ensure that we have this money in the light of the record of the previous decommissioning scheme. The track record of that scheme was not good, and did not take tonnage out of the fishing industry in the way that it should have.
  We have won this money. Before the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) derides me once more from behind his bright and shiny tie—which is typical of the glitz and glitter that he likes to create—let me tell the House that the £25 million is being backed up by £18 million on research and £20 million on fisheries protection. Those are substantial sums in relation to the size of the fishing industry.
  The purpose of the statutory instrument is to set out the rules for the payment of decommissioning grant. Eligibility for the grant—I am now coming to the good bits —is restricted to registered fishing vessels that are over 10 m long and over 10 years of age, are seaworthy, have a valid fishing licence that has not been downgraded since 27 February 1992 and were acquired before that date. Those vessels should have spent at least 100 days on fishing trips in each of the years 1991 and 1992.
  Mr. James Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jack: No, the hon. Gentleman must hear the good news. This is how they will get the money.
  Payment for vessels decommissioned will be determined by a tendering process, with bids ranked according to pounds per vessel capacity unit. That approach will enable us to take out the largest catching capacity for the available funds. Owners of eligible vessels must be prepared to scrap and deregister their vessels and surrender all their licences by 1 March 1994. That is a much tighter scheme than its predecessor.
  Those are the eligibility rules which will apply for 1993–94. Next year, they may be changed in the light of the experience of this year's scheme. In that way, we can provide for the best targeting of funds. I know that the Opposition will like that.
  Moreover, £8·4 million is available under the 1993–94 scheme, and £25 million in total. A press announcement inviting applications under the scheme was made on 26 May 1993. The closing date for applications is 9 July.
  418
  However, we have had representations from fishermen that that deadline is too tight, particularly in view of uncertainties. I am pleased to announce an extension to the end of the month, to allow fishermen to reflect further and apply if they wish.
  I believe that this scheme, as part of the package of conservation measures that I have described, represents an excellent opportunity for fishermen who wish to leave the industry. It will help to reduce fishing effort, and help us to meet our European Community obligations.
  But what about the other main element of the package, the days-at-sea restrictions? The fishing industry has expressed many doubts about these restrictions, and I am fully aware that some sectors of the industry have ideas about alternative solutions or specific concerns about the detail of the days-at-sea rules that they want addressed. When the Minister and I were appointed we said that we would listen to the industry on those matters. We have both met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. I had a long meeting at Brixham with representatives of the fishing industry. I have been to the EC Fisheries Council, I propose to go to Humberside next week and I have several other engagements lined up in fishing areas.
  My Scottish Office colleagues and I will shortly meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. We will continue to listen, but I should like to hear from hon. Members about the issues that are arising in their constituencies. With their help, we want to look at ideas for dealing with the problems and to see whether we can be more flexible and responsive to the industry's needs.
  To allow more time for this dialogue, I now announce a postponement of the days-at-sea restrictions. They will not be introduced until January 1994. That will give us the opportunity to consult fully with the industry about its concerns and to hear its ideas for tackling conservation.
  Mr. Foulkes: I welcome the Minister's announcement. He is a great improvement on his predecessor, and the Secretary of State is an even bigger improvement. [Interruption.] I agree with the Minister about my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I wish he would shut up occasionally.
  The Minister said that he wanted to hear from hon. Members. My constituents in Girvan, Ballantrae and Dunure, and those who fish out of Ayr, are worried about the effect of the tie-up regulations on fishermen who fish stocks that are not precious and for which conservation is not a problem. I hope that, when the Minister speaks to the fishermen and looks again at the matter, he will pay attention to that problem.
  Mr. Jack: That is the most constructive Opposition contribution during the debate. I am glad that at least one Opposition Member is alive to some of the industry's real problems. The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an interesting point. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has left the Chamber, fishermen in Brixham also raised that matter with me. They also asked about crustacean fishermen. It is important that such ideas are fleshed out and considered, and I look forward to such dialogue.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister said that he and his colleagues from the Scottish Office would shortly meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The federation was given to believe at a much earlier stage that that meeting might

  419
  have taken place by now and would have been with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When will the meeting be held—or is the federation just being given a hope and a prayer?
  Mr. Jack: The fishermen may have prayed to see me and their prayer has been answered. We hope to have the meeting as soon as possible. When I met them at a preliminary meeting in Luxembourg last week, I indicated that we would be meeting as soon as I could fit such a meeting into my diary.
  Mrs. Ewing: Is it a blind date?
  Mr. Jack: I cannot tell the hon. Lady that. Orders and other bits of parliamentary business keep appearing in my diary just when I want to see people such as the Scottish fishermen. As soon as that business is out of the way, I shall go to see them. I will try to have the meeting before the end of July, but, in any case, it will be held as soon as possible.
  Mr. David Trimble rose—
  Mr. Jack: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time that I shall give way.
  Mr. Trimble: I was impressed by the Minister's itinerary. He has been to Brixham, and intends to visit Humberside and Scotland. When does he intend to go to Northern Ireland to speak to fishermen there?
  Mr. Jack: As always, I took many of the engagements because people had the courtesy to invite me. Obviously, my right hon. Friend and I want to listen to representatives of fishermen from all parts of the country and I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman sufficient indication that, if the appropriate invitation comes, we shall do our best to listen to those views.
  Mrs. Ewing: Obviously we are concerned about the blind date which seems to be emerging between the Minister and representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I hope that we can have some clarification of the immediate need for that particular meeting to take place. Given what he has already said about the Department's change of attitude, what attitude does he strike towards the pelagic fleet which has already met its MAGP requirements, and to the prawn fishermen who represent a very important part of the fishing industry? Many areas, including Buckie in my constituency, are dependent on the crustacean fishermen.
  Mr. Jack: It is just like blind date; one never knows what will happen until the screen rolls back. We are on either side of the screen at the moment; I hope that it will roll back and we will have a proper dialogue. The hon. Lady's question draws attention to another area of complexity in a difficult subject—differences between regional fishing area in the way in which policy impacts. I already have a flavour of that from some of the representations that I have received and I will certainly want to hear more and have it developed.
  I say to everybody who wants to contribute to the discussion that it must be with the objective of enabling us to meet our multi-annual guidance programme. It is no use running away from the fundamental task of reducing the
  420
  fishing effort in Britain and Europe. I gave a clear indication at the start of the debate about what happened in Canadian waters when dramatic overfishing occurred.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have a genuine feeling for the industry which is full of dedicated individuals who each day gamble with their economics, their lives, the weather and their well-being. I try to understand that, but, if there is to be an industry and fish stocks for them to enjoy in future, we have to find ways of balancing the effort and the catching capacity of the fleet to the available fishing stocks.
  The proposals that I have put before the House this evening are a way forward.
  Mr. Morley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will have the chance to put this point of view later, but I will give way to him.
  Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the Minister, because it is a crucial point.
  In the discussions that the Minister intends to have with the industry, will there be a possibility of new money being put on the table? We have heard nothing tonight about any increased funding of the core of the decommissioning scheme. If there is no new money, what is the point of having discussions on making the scheme work better?
  Mr. Jack: I have just announced the spending of £25 million. It is not an insubstantial sum. Let us assume that the head nodders on the Opposition Benches have now committed their respective parties to very large sums of public expenditure. Let me put it this way. We shall be spending £8·4 million in the first year of decommissioning.
  Whichever way the hon. Gentleman seeks to interpret it, and I know how he may argue the case, the fact is that British taxpayers' money is being spent. We want to make certain that the money is applied as effectively as possible and that the new decommissioning scheme does not run foul of the problems of the previous scheme.
  Before the hon. Gentleman smiles and blindly promises money away, he should read the European Court of Auditors' report from the beginning to the end of its 100-odd pages and he will see why we have to be careful with public money.
  I said that we wished to postpone the introduction of days-at-sea regulations until 1 January 1994, and I want to make quite certain that we give a reasonable amount of time to representations from the fishing industry. I want those to be concluded by the end of September so that we can have a proper time to consider carefully what those representations contain and can then take those into account in terms of the final arrangements for days at sea and their application from 1 January.
  Our task will not be easy. Reducing effort in the fishing industry is difficult, but it remains a key part of our multi-annual guidance programme targets. Effort control cannot be abandoned in the long-term interests of the fishing industry. It is vital to ensure that we make the best use of the £25 million available for decommissioning. We cannot remove vessels from the fleet and allow other vessels to fish harder.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement of a postponement of days-at-sea restrictions until next year will be warmly welcomed in the west country, where there has been a great

  421
  deal of concern about that? Can he confirm that the decommissioning scheme will not be postponed? Will he also say whether that extra period will give us an opportunity to observe what our European competitors will be doing to conserve their own fish stocks, so that we can see how they are performing against standard?
  Mr. Jack: I can confirm that, apart from the extension on applications, which I mentioned earlier, there will he no delay on the decommissioning scheme. As an act of faith, we are putting this scheme before the House. We said that we would introduce the scheme, and that is what we are doing.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) said, it is important to see what other countries are doing. As my predecessor indicated, he wanted to make that a key part of the policies that we are adopting. It is vital that others work hard to meet their multi-annual guidance programmes. We will be watching that carefully, as we will the whole issue of the enforcement of the common fishing policy.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jack: I must come to a conclusion. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and it would be churlish for me to take more time than is necessary.
  We want to listen carefully to the views expressed in the debate. We want to listen to the views of colleagues from both sides of the House, many of whom are deeply involved with their fishermen and the fishing industry. We want to listen to the fishing industry because it is from the industry that the ideas for managment of change must now come. I commend the scheme to the House.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I had hoped that the new Minister would have had an opportunity to look again at the decommissioning scheme and the whole package. He claims that he has looked at it. He has made some suggestions, which both I and the industry welcome. We welcome the stay of execution from this autumn until January 1994. I could be a little churlish and wonder how much that delay has to do with the fact that his Ministry is having difficulty getting it ready to operate from this autumn. That may have influenced the decision. Nevertheless, the Minister has given an assurance that he will consult the industry and I welcome that. However, in his battles with the Treasury, it seems that not one penny of extra money has been put on the table to improve the scheme.
  The Minister was full of bluster about the previous decommissioning scheme. The National Audit Office report did criticise that scheme, but it also made it clear that the principle was sound. The reason that it did not work was the Government's incompetence in administering the scheme.
  The key issues involved in the package of decommissioning, which is allied to days at sea, are reducing capacity and conservation. We have never, in all these debates, argued against the genuine need for capacity reduction and for tackling conservation. Our question concerns the best way of going about that. We do not feel that the Government have gone far enough or fast enough.
  Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the amount of money put into the scheme this year. Will he give some indication of how much more money he thinks should be put into the scheme this year to make it effective? I genuinely want to know how much more money he thinks is needed to make the scheme work.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is hypothetical to ask the Opposition how much money should be allocated, but I shall answer the question directly. He knows that there are two reasons why I cannot give a figure: first, I am not in office and do not know what the situation will be in a few years' time; secondly, when we give guarantees and assurances, unlike the Government's assurances on tax and VAT, we will honour them and ensure that they are delivered. if the hon. Gentleman has so little confidence in his Minister that he wants me to make suggestions, I shall happily do so. He should know that, according to the Government's figures, this package will cost an extra £1·4 million in bureaucracy and enforcement, but I suspect that the total will prove to be much higher.
  I shall suggest an alternative approach to the hon. Gentleman which would allow money for enforcement to be added to the total package, attracting a further 70 per cent. from European Community funds. It must be borne in mind that the £25 million is a gross figure comprised of 70 per cent. of European Community money and a very small Government contribution. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to introduce measures, he can move a motion of no confidence and we will he only too pleased to take over.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that any of the money that the Government are proposing for decommissioning will go to the crews? It would be an outrage if employees who work on fishing vessels were to find themselves redundant and without compensation and all the extra money were to go to skippers or owners. I hope that, when we have a Labour Government, we will ensure fair distribution of this money.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was disappointed that the Minister did not mention the affected communities that will lose jobs as a result of even this decommissioning scheme. The Minister should be arguing for Community social funds for those communities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking on behalf of the many share fishermen who stand to get nothing out of the measure.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is not only a question of the amount on which these pedantic party political points will be raised but the timing. Had the scheme been introduced when we were asking for it four or five years ago, we would not be in this situation. Every other EC country has put its multi-annual guidance programmes in place by introducing a decommissioning scheme on time and sufficiently funded, which is why we are now behind.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I shall deal with in a moment.
  We want to see good value for public money and an effective decommissioning scheme. We have no argument about evaluating it and deciding how it operates, but other EC states have been using the scheme for a long time. Labour has consistently argued for the introduction of a decommissioning scheme, but the Government's failure to

  423
  act has impacted on our fishing fleet. Does the Minister accept that part of the crisis of over-capacity is of the Government's own making? Between 1987 and 1991 no effort was made to introduce a decommissioning scheme, and the Government consistently failed to meet their multi-annual guidance programme targets. They must recognise their responsibility and ensure that the industry does not shoulder the full blame.
  Mr. Jack: May I check a point of detail? The hon. Gentleman said that he favoured an effective decommissioning policy and cited those who had criticised the previous policy. Does his scheme include as a point of effectiveness an effort reduction policy?
  Mr. Morley: An effort reduction policy is certainly extremely important, but it must be considered in the light of technical conservation measures. I shall deal with that point later, but I wish now to dwell on an issue which is at the heart of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. The Government accepted an amendment to the effect that they were duty bound to
  "first give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning in order to achieve a significant reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet."
  Does the Minister believe that the scheme reduces the fleet significantly? Does it honour that section of the Bill? What considceration has he given to an effective decommissioning scheme to meet the requirements of the Act?
  Will the Minister confirm that the decommissioning scheme was initially meant to be financed over a two-year period, whereas it is now projected to be over a three-year period? The decommissioning scheme, as opposed, has therefore been weakened rather than strengthened, and he can hardly claim that it is effective.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to answer that point. It is an effective scheme because, by spreading it over a longer period, we have the opportunity to examine how it is hitting the targets. I said that it was designed to take out 10,000 tonnes to 12,000 tonnes but we may find that the first tranche does not necessarily affect the areas that are most effective in taking out the greatest tonnage in pursuit of our MAGP targets. Opposition Members intervened to ask us to recognise specific differences in the way that fishing is carried out, so I should have thought that having time to reflect and adjust strengthens the scheme,
  Mr. Morley: We shall see, but I would argue that it has weakened the scheme.
  Does the Minister accept that the £25 million that has been committed will reduce the fleet's capacity only by a measly 5 per cent? That does not go very far and I would hardly say that it was an effective or significant reduction.
  Will the Minister confirm that 70 per cent. of the overall funding for the scheme will come from the European Community? Like other Ministers, he may mention the Fontainebleau agreement and how the money is clawed back, but will he confirm that the money that fishermen will receive as part of the decommissioning will be subject to tax? The House would welcome a clarification of how the tax will be calculated; will it be corporation tax or capital gains tax? It would be useful to know.
  The Minister said that the scheme has been criticised as being too little too late. He accused the Labour party of
  424
  making that criticism, but, although we endorse it, it was in fact made by the House of Lords all-party Select Committee. The Minister has not dealt with the fact that, because of technical improvements, the catching rate of the fleet has increased by 2 per cent. a year. Due to the delay, for which I hold the Government responsible, capacity has also increased.
  Does the Minister acknowledge the bitterness felt by fishermen when they compare how they have been treated with the way in which the agricultural sector is treated? When there is over-capacity in the agricultural sector, farmers are offered substantial compensation for not growing crops, but when there is a problem in the fishing industry, the response has been a tiny decommissioning scheme and compulsory days in port. Fishermen also have loans and mortgages to pay and families to keep and they feel bitter about the dual standards that the Government have adopted when dealing with them and the agricultural sector.
  On scrapping procedures, has the Minister given any thought to how fishermen will find enough places for their boats to be scrapped and who will scrap them? Has he given any thought to the question of who will scrap wooden fishing boats? That is an unusual detail. Does he accept the fact that, as I understand it, fishermen will have to pay between £6,000 and £10,000 for the scrapping of their boats, which has to be included in the bid that they make for the decomissioning money?
  I shall make some suggestions to the Minister and deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). I challenge the Minister, when he meets the fishermen, to consider their proposals for dealing with effort reduction by means of a package of effective and workable technical conservation measures. The Minister has his scheme in place and he can always implement it. He announced tonight that he will delay implementation until January 1994. Why does not he take a step further and delay the scheme until January 1995, to give technical conservation measures a chance? We could evaluate them and see whether they work and we could give the fishing industry a chance to make them work.
  Does the Minister recognise that the industry wants to be involved and that the fishermen have sensible and constructive suggestions, which I believe could work? If he will not consider those, will he consider, as an alternative, giving fishermen an option involving technical conservation gear rather than enforcing days in port?
  Mr. Jack rose—
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Wait until the end.
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has been generous in allowing me to intervene and I would like to pick up a few more of the points that he has raised.
  I made it clear in my speech that we were working closely with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on its technical conservation review. I am sure that other such measures will be suggested for us to consider, but will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, if those measures are to contribute to achieving the multi-annual guidance programme target, they must be agreed by the Commission to be helpful in that respect? If such ideas are proposed, we are prepared to discuss them

  425
  with the Commission, but we must agree that the point at which all our ideas must come together is the achieving of the MAGP target.
  Mr. Morley: I accept that, but does the Minister accept that the Commission has been pressing the Government for many years to take up its offer of decommissioning grant, yet until recently the Government have consistently ignored the offer? If the fishermen are making an offer on technical conservation measures, which will cost them money and, by their very nature, reduce their catching capacity, the Minister in turn should give some sign that he is willing to move in terms of the money on the table for the decommissioning scheme.
  Is he prepared to move on the idea of returning to a two-year period for decommissioning? The period should be as short as possible. We all accept that we must reduce the fleet, so surely it is better to do that as quickly as possible, to ensure that the reduction is effective, rather than having a slow process that will do neither the industry nor fish stocks any good.
  As I said, fishermen will have to put in a bid for the scrapping of their vessels. Will the Minister consider a radical alternative to scrapping and examine, with his colleagues in the Overseas Development Administration, a package of measures that could be financed by EC money from another budget, and which would allow the boats, rather than being scrapped and wasted, to be used in an aid programme for developing countries, as part of a package of support measures for fishing in those countries? I appreciate that there may be technical difficulties, but will the Minister consider and discuss the idea? It would certainly be a more usesful way of disposing of the boats. Indeed, saving the scrapping element in the bids would provide more money that could go into the pot for an effective decommissioning scheme.
  Mr. Mans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, especially as he has done so twice. flow would he get over the problem that would arise if, when we had sent those vessels to third-world countries, they found their way back into British waters to fish our stocks?
  Mr. Morley: There would be control by licence applications.
  Mr. David Harris: They would buy licences.
  Mr. Morley: There is nothing to stop other member states buying licences now, so there would be no change there. It is unlikely that such vessels would find their way hack. There may he ways in which to deal with that in terms of the overall package. However, the main point is that, if boats do not have a licence, they simply cannot fish.
  If the Minister feels that that suggestion is not feasible, and if the boats are to be disposed of in this country, will he consider the idea of sinking them rather than scrapping them? They could be sunk to create artificial reefs, which could be used for fish conservation, for marine diving, for rod fishermen or for the protection of conservation areas. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) would not object to a few scuttled boats in the south-west mackerel box to protect fish stocks there.
  I shall bring my speech to a conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I recognise that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I am sure that they appreciate
  426
  that there have been many interventions from hon. Members of all parties. It is right to allow interventions and to allow hon. Members to make their points.
  I do not believe that the Government have considered all the options available to them. As I said, if the proposal is successful and takes on board the technical gear conservation measures, it would be possible to add the savings of £1·4 million of annual revenue commitment for enforcement and scrapping to make the decommissioning scheme more viable.
  The measure does not go far enough. It does not meet the Government's pledges or the obligations they have accepted. It discriminates unfairly against British fishermen while the fishermen of other EC states, which have made good use of their decommissioning money over the years and which have called on more money from the EC than is the case with our Government, are allowed to fish unhindered. Our fishermen face restrictive and punitive tie-up measures.
  I ask the Minister to consider all those points, to take note of the interventions from both sides of the House, to consult the fishermen and to use the breathing space that he has announced tonight to ensure that we have a more sensible, more generous and more effective decommissioning package which will really bring about a sustainable industry in this country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Hon. Members will notice that only an hour is now available for the remainder of the debate. Many hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that those who are fortunate enough to be called will be brief and will give other hon. Members the opportunity to speak.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. David Harris: I welcome very much the tone of my hon. Friend the Minister's speech, and I congratulate him on his appointment. I also welcome his main announcement that he will postpone implementation of the freezing of effort control, at least until January. I am sure that that will be welcomed by the industry, especially in the south-west, as has been said. I am sure, to echo the points made by the hon. Member for Glanford annd Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is a reasonable hon. Member, that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that the time is well spent in listening, as he said, to the views of the fishing industry. At long last, the fishing industry is taking a positive approach to what we all recognise to be a very difficult problem.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend paid tribute to his predecessor. He had a difficult time—the understatement of the year—in fishing matters. However, he was instrumental in getting £25 million from the Treasury, as my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledges. He did that largely because there was—[HON. MEMBERS: "A general election."] Not at all because of the general election. he did that largely because there was agreement by hon. Members of all parties who represent fishing constituencies about the part that a decommissioning scheme could and should play in trying to resolve this difficult problem.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course a decommissioning scheme of itself cannot begin to solve the problem. He was also right to concentrate on the limitations of a decommissioning scheme and to point out

  427
  our unhappy experiences when we had a decommissioning scheme before. I have never gone along with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations when it has tried to put the emphasis on decommissioning in bringing about a better balance in the fleet. Decommissioning certainly has a part to play, but it cannot solve, or begin to solve, most of the problem.
  It is no secret that I do not believe that £25 million over three years is adequate for a decommissioning scheme. I know that many of my colleagues who also represent fishing constituencies take that view. I should like to see the amount increased. For what it is worth, I have given my hon. Friend the Minister some private advice on the matter. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State here for the debate. The private advice that I gave was that together the Minister and the Secretary of State should find money from within their Departmental budget for decommissioning.
  I am reinforced in that view by something that happened today in a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member. We took evidence from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on whether Britain should rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. That is a point close to the heart of the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). She also cares passionately about the interests of her fishermen. Later tonight, in the Adjournment debate, she will undoubtedly argue that we should rejoin UNESCO.
  Our subscription to UNESCO would be £11 million a year. Over three years, the cost of rejoining UNESCO would be significantly more than the amount proposed for the decommissioning scheme to help restructure the fishing industry. That puts the matter into context. More money should certainly be made available for the decommissioning scheme.
  I also share some of the anxieties expressed by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, about some of the details of the scheme. He mentioned the cost of scrapping vessels. That is relevant. He also mentioned taxation. There is uncertainty about taxation. I hope that the Minister will clarify exactly how the fishermen will stand in respect of capital gains if they take decommissioning money.
  There is also the issue of technical progression in the industry. It is always increasing its capacity to catch. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that it increased its capacity by some 2 per cent. a year. I gather that the term for that in the trade is technical creep.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: A Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  Mr. Harris: Fortunately, my days as a PPS are long behind me. I am told that the amount of money for decommissioning will hardly match the technical creep in the industry. So, again, the amount proposed for the scheme is not adequate.
  I now strike a positive note. The Minister's remarks were welcome. There is a new mood in the industry. I was heartened to hear reports of the discussions that took place in the south-west on 22 May in Brixham between
  428
  representatives of the industry and Ministry scientists about some other ways of achieving conservation. It is no secret to the House that I have pressed for such discussions for more than a year. The industry was slow to respond to that challenge, but now it is responding. So my plea to the Minister tonight is to take advantage of a changing mood in the industry, put behind us the unhappiness of the past, look to the future and concentrate on how we can devise better ways to achieve conservation than the Government's proposals.
  Again, it is no secret that I and some of my colleagues, especially those from Cornwall, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) have consistently opposed the principle of tie-up. It is not the right way forward.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that while we welcome the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Minister this evening, it would have had greater credence—I think that my hon. Friend the Minister would agree in his heart of hearts—if he had agreed to suspend the implementation of the tie-up restrictions until there was tangible evidence that our European fishing partners were taking similar measures. That is the crucial point for my hon. Friend's fishermen in Newlyn and for mine in Looe and Polperro.
  Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend is right. I share his view, which some of us pressed on our Front Bench colleagues earlier this evening. The previous agreement—the Gummer or Curry agreement—given in the famous debate of last year, that the Government would not move to the next stage until it was proved that others were implementing equivalent or equally effective measures, was a big step forward. We want Ministers to go one step further, and not go ahead with the suspension in January unless there is positive evidence that other member states are also taking that action.
  There is now a window of opportunity. If the industry acts positively, as I hope and believe that it will, and if my hon. Friend the Minister and his officials act positively, perhaps we will not need to implement the tie-up scheme. I urge him to take that opportunity.
  I asked my hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions last week about the number of boats that were restricted to tie-up in England and the west country, and in particular the number of vessels that, because they do not have a track record, have been given a minimum provisional allocation of 80 days or 160 half days. His answer was that, of the 1,582 boats in England subject to tie-up, 801—over half—are in that category.
  I had hoped that my hon. Friend would announce tonight that he would increase that number. I know that he is concerned about the subject and is looking at it carefully. I press him to make an early decision to increase the allocation, because the vessels have not had to keep log books and records, and are being put in an invidious position. It would be an enormous help, and another sign of his good faith towards the industry, if he could make an announcement on that.
  Mr. Jack: That is the kind of suggestion that we shall think on carefully.
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's approach. I hope that we can return to a reasonable

  429
  relationship between the industry and the Government, because the present trench warfare is in the interests of no one.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall begin by spending a few seconds expressing my sympathy to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has been deprived of the chance to go to the farewell dinner for Lord Sanderson, while Tory Back Benchers think that that is much more important than being in the Chamber to defend the fishing industry, from which they derived some votes.
  I have only one quarrel with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I did not find the Minister's tone conciliatory. I thought that the belligerent way in which he opened the debate was the traditional way of demonstrating weakness—when one has a weak case, shout the others down. I began to think that the Government had learnt nothing from our previous debates.
  Our debates on the fishing industry over the past few years have shown a rigidity of purpose among Ministers, brought about by mental paralysis. They seem to be totally incapable of independent thought. However, they have had ample opportunity, provided by the fishing industry—
  Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way. Many other hon. Members wish to speak. I do not have much time and I want to make my remarks speedily and so allow other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), an opportunity to speak. I will not be like the Minister and speak for 40 minutes. Thai was quite disgraceful.
  The Government are incapable of considering the very constructive points made by the fishing industry. Like many hon. Members, I welcome the Government's apparent conciliatory measure of postponing the days-at-sea regulations until 1 January next year. However, we are not looking for a temporary respite. We are looking for a real, fundamental reappraisal. It is not enough to say that we will put it off for six months or whatever and then come back in January and do nothing.
  The Minister announced that the date for application of the decommissioning scheme has been extended to the end of the month as if that was some great concession. It is not a great concession. The Minister must recognise that people will have to consider whether to sell their vessels and so lose their livelihoods and that of their crews. That is not an easy decision. The Minister might argue that people in the industry should have made their minds up by now. That is perhaps a reasonable criticism. However, things have been so tough for those people that it has not been possible for them to make rational decisions.
  I welcome the new ministerial team. The team began by saying that it was going to be a much more listening team and that there was to be less of the macho style and the style that Whitehall, Dover house in London and St. Andrew's house know best. We were told that the team would listen. However, the Minister has not listened to the industry.
  The industry is saying quite specifically that the decommissioning scheme takes out of the overcapacity only 5 per cent. while the Minister has signed up to a
  430
  reduction of 19 per cent. If the Minister's scheme works totally, it will produce a saving of only one quarter of what he has signed up to reduce. The £25 million which was initially due to be spent over two years is now to be spent over three years. If enough applications come forward, and if they meet all the criteria, is the Minister prepared to spend that money in one year and then argue for more?
  The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) demanded to know how much we would spend. As soon as we say how much we would spend, the hon. Gentleman gets up and says that we are spendthrifts. We are not having that. We believe that the money should be spent to sharply reduce the capacity.
  Everyone agrees that there should be an effective decomissioning scheme. However, the Minister must consider a serious matter that has hung over the industry for many years. The Government talk of decommissioning as though it means only boats and property and not people. People will have to pay the price. Until the Government assure us that they will battle in every quarter to deal with the social consequences of decommissioning in tightly knit fishing communities that depend entirely on fishing for their living, they cannot command our respect.
  I concede that the Minister quietened down after intervening like a jack-in-the-box—no pun intended—and toned down his remarks. No doubt he will say that he listened. However, will he, or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland if he replies to the debate, assure us that the postponement of the days-at-sea scheme that has been announced today will mean a fundamental review and, if necessary, new regulations or new primary legislation? If the Minister were to do that, I am sure that we could support him.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that the length of the speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will be an example to hon. Members. I am keen to call as many hon. Members as possible, not least those from the minority parties.
  10.50 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I wish to make two brief points.
  First, I emphasise the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). Boats which have been allocated just 80 days are in a particularly difficult position. They are not eligible for decommmissioning. When I attended the Devon county show this year, I was concerned to be approached by an area manager of a national bank, which has been required to lend money to fishermen, particularly for newer boats. In his opinion, with 80 days, they would have great difficulty in servicing the loan, let alone being able to pay crew and others. That is a genuine problem, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would consider that grouping.
  Secondly, I emphasise what has been said about non-precious stocks and fishermen, particularly those in the south-west, who fish primarily in area 7. For example, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know, very little cod is caught in that area. Cod and haddock are a conservation problem. Because fishermen who fish primarily non-precious stocks are also subject to the days-at-sea policy, one aspect that worries them is not only the current

  431
  situation but non-precious stocks also becoming quota stocks and quotas being based on what they have caught in previous years. Because they have to be tied up in comparison with boats from other nations, particularly France and Spain, they fear that they would automatically be down on the list of what they would be eligible to catch of new quota species.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall follow your stricture to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Minister should look again at the Scottish National party manifesto. He will find that we proposed a doubling of decommissioning money over a two-year period. He will remember that at that time the Government were also committed to a two-year period for decommissioning, not the present three-year period. The Minister's argument about the costs of decommissioning is fallacious. There is a 70 per cent. grant from the Community. Admittedly, it comes off the Fontainebleau rebate, but, if we applied the argument to any part of European funding, we would never spend any money from Europe on anything. Why on earth should the fishing industry be discriminated against?
  What is certainly true is that, over the past few years, hundreds of millions of ecus of structural funding have gone to other fleets within the European Community, and nothing whatsoever has come to fishermen in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. That should not be allowed to continue.
  Will the Minister explain the split between decommissioning and effort limitation on the multi annual guidance premium targets? Theoretically, it could be 55 per cent. to 45 per cent. At no stage have we been told—many of us suspect that it is because the Minister does not know—what the exact trade-off is. I hope that the Minister also takes on board the argument that to restrict the decommissioning availability to boats which have fished 100 days in each of the past two fishing years might exclude boats which did not fish in the last two years for very good reasons, including conservation of stock.
  I wish to read into the record a note that I received today from Hugh Allen, the secretary-designate of Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association. The letter was sent to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), but, as we have heard, the hon. Gentleman is at a farewell dinner, so he is not here to present it to the House. The letter highlights the point which concerns fishermen about the tendering process which could result in some fishermen, even if they applied for decommissioning, ending up with no funds whatsoever.
  Mr. Allen writes:
  "To give you an illustration, a vessel built 15 years ago at a cost of £200,000 and kept in good condition would probably be worth £150,000 today and that figure is the level of the skipper's hid. She has a written down tax value of £10,000 so if he was successful with his application he would be liable to income tax at 40 per cent. of £140,000 which is £56,000, leaving £94,000 in the kitty. From this figure he has to repay any grants he received during that last three years. This figure could easily be £20,000 reducing his balance to £74,000.
  An operating deficit with the salesman's office of £20,000 which must also be repaid now leaves him with £54,000. The clearing of £30,000 outstanding mortgage brings his pay down to £24,000 and the closing of £10,000 worth of electronics contracts leaves him with just £14,000."
  432
  Out of that £14,000, he must pay for the scrapping of the vessel—an average of £10,000—leaving £4,000 to disburse among the crew of the fishing vessel. In that illustration, a fisherman could theoretically—because of the tendering process forcing lower bids—end up with nothing from the decommissioning process.
  I agree with the point often made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the previous decommissioning scheme. He has argued that, under that scheme, millions of pounds disappeared up the Humber to the friends of the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and nothing whatsoever was made available to the fishing crews who were made redundant as part of that process. I should like to see some sign from the Minister that he is aware of the social consequences of boats which could be decommissioned out of the fleet.
  We have had a change of course from the Minister tonight. He is not going ahead with the implementation of days at sea until 1 January 1994. I hope that that also represents a change of heart. Let us face the reality: the days-at-sea legislation is unenforceable. Anyone who has seen the demonstrations up and down the coastline in the past few months knows that the days-at-sea legislation cannot be imposed on the fishing industry.
  While the Minister takes a few months to contemplate this matter, let him remember that, if he does not bury the days-at-sea legislation, it will bury him.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Underpinning this whole debate is the sense of community that the fishing communities feel and which they realise is under threat. Whether we are talking about a decommissioning scheme worth £25 million or £250 million, ultimately we are talking about the destruction of communities.
  It is one thing to say that it is inevitable. It is one thing to say that if there are no fish left, there are no jobs for any fishermen—and it is proper to try to cope with that. However, as representatives of communities—I represent a fishing community—we must never lose sight of the fact that when we are having such a debate, we are talking about the destruction of ways of life and communities.
  That way of life will often go back 200 or 300 years in the same family. Sometimes, the feelings of outrage, which can superficially seem unreasonable, are about a folk memory that goes deeply. When we have what may seem like a clinical discussion, it is important to face the fact that we are talking about the destruction of communities and ways of life that can never be replaced. That is certainly the first thing that I learnt from my acquaintance with a fishing community.
  The second thing I learnt is that, no matter how modern technology is, fishing is still a dangerous job, because virtually every fishing family will have friends, relatives or acquaintances who ultimately did not come back from trips to sea. Few of us are called to display that type of raw courage in our working life. It says something about the way in which communities are reinforced and why they will find such debates so hard to take.
  Another more pragmatic lesson that I learned from my meetings with fishing communities is that there will never be a consensus on how best to conserve fish stocks. When I started in politics, I thought that, if we talked enough and met enough people, and if we were reasonable enough, a consensus came through in the end. There is no consensus

  433
  that I can see or that is achievable among the fishing community about how stocks will be conserved. In the end— this is a hard point to make, but I hope that it is an honest one—there is no alternative to Parliament taking a view on how conservation measures will be enforced and then being prepared to stand by them. There is no consensus available.
  Even when fishing communities realise that there can be no consensus on conservation, they feel that they have not been listened to. That is unfair, bearing in mind the considerable efforts of my hon. Friend's predecessor. I know him well. I am also conscious that he knew the effect that it would have on fishing communities.
  The problem with politics in the 20th century is that perception sometimes matters every bit as much as reality. Sometimes, there was a feeling that the case of the fishing communities was not being listened to. Ideally, they wanted their assessment of the situation to be accepted. What they wanted at the very least was a feeling that, even if nothing could be done, ultimately they were being understood.
  I was delighted with the turn of my hon. Friend the Minister's speech. I have been greatly heartened by my meetings with my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Even if they could not do everything that we wanted for our domestic fishermen, I detected a desire and a keenness to understand and listen even when no ideal solution can be delivered.
  I should like to think that my fishing community, listening to this debate and reading about it afterwards, will say, "It may not have contained everything that we wanted—how could it when no consensus exists?—but we have been listened to."
  My hon. Friend's announcement that there is to be a moratorium on the effort restrictions came as much as a surprise to me as to anyone else. It will be possible, in the next few months, to listen to the fishing community yet again to see whether their concerns can be responded to. The position that my hon. Friend has adopted is extremely important.
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: In view of the time, I ask the hon. Lady to bear with me, because others want to speak.
  Secondly, even where it is accepted that nothing can be done, there is sometimes a feeling of outrage—I use the word deliberately—among the fishing community and members of the public that our communities are somehow being asked to bear the brunt while EC fishermen are not. I shall not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend earlier in the debate, but the assurance that he gave me was exactly what I wanted.
  It is all too easy to say that we will not enforce any of our laws until the others do so. If we play that game so obviously, ultimately no targets are met by anyone and no fish are left. Although I should like it in my heart of hearts, I do not see how my hon. Friend could go so far as to say that we will not enforce our laws and meet our own obligations until we see that that has been done in advance by other countries.
  But—it is an important "but" in the real world of trying to achieve something instead of indulging in empty rhetoric—my hon. Friend the Minister has made a clear statement that we shall do everything in our power to
  434
  ensure that our fishermen are not out there by themselves and our EC partners also obey the laws. That seems to be right, and the fishing community can take heart from it.
  Although it sounds less exciting and rhetorical than the alternative—that we will not enforce our laws unless others enforce theirs—ultimately, it is a far more honest position to put before fishermen. That is why I was so pleased by my hon. Friend's contribution tonight.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I take issue with one point made by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). He said that there was no consensus on conservation measures in the fishing industry. There is not only consensus but unity in the fishing industry's opposition to the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967. It has united all aspects of the industry in all parts of the country.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have slightly back tracked. They rushed this measure through in the early weeks of this Parliament, last year. They are now prepared to shelve it until 1 January. Although many of us would have preferred a total moratorium, I welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to listen and said that he will try to meet Scottish fishermen by the end of this month.
  I hope that he will take into account the fact that, although the industry opposes the days-at-sea legislation, if it is to exist and be fair, it must be fine-tuned far more than it is at present and take account of regional differences and pressures on stocks in different parts of the country.
  The Minister should also answer the point made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). If the pelagic fleet has already met its MAGP target, why in the world do we need to impose days-at-sea restrictions on it? Last year, it could not even catch the full quota allocated to it.
  Mr. Salmond: And the quota has gone up.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) reminds me that the quota has gone up, yet the pelagic fleet has been asked to accept further days-at-sea restrictions.
  To reduce pressure on white fish stocks in the North sea, many vessels may like to travel to more distant waters and fish new species. The fact that they must be at sea longer to get to those distant waters means that they will spend even more time at sea. I hope that the Minister will allow an opportunity for flexibility on that count.
  I hope that the Minister will discuss positively with the industry questions on technical conservation measures. He said that he was already working well with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on its conservation review. How and to what extent will technical conservation measures adequately substitute for days-atsea restrictions? Those restrictions were introduced in a Bill that we debated over a year ago, but they were presented to us then as a conservation measure. What the Minister has said tonight makes it clear that this scheme has far more to do with meeting our MAGP targets.
  A number of questions need to be answered. First, what is the trade-off between a days-at-sea restriction or effort limitation and decommissioning, which takes capacity out of the fleet? We are now faced with a two-pronged attack, but we have not been told the conversion factor. I think that it is only fair to let the industry know where it stands.

  435
  Secondly, we want to know what other European nations have done about the balance between effort limitation and capacity reduction. I am told that, by 1 May 1993, the steps taken by member nations to secure MAGP compliance should have been reported. We want to know what other European Community nations are doing about days-at-sea restrictions.
  It has already been pointed out that Opposition Members—and, to be fair, a number of Conservative Members—called for decommissioning for many years before it was eventually announced, a few weeks before the general election. When we say that this is too little, too late, we do not say it with the benefit of hindsight; we said it before. It has also been pointed out that the same view was expressed by a House of Lords Select Committee, which opined that the present decommissioning scheme —the one on offer—would probably do little more than meet the technical increase of 2 per cent. per annum.
  If that is so, will the Minister tell us how he thinks the 55 per cent. decrease in capacity will be met if it is not to be met by a decommissioning scheme? What element is being allowed for the bankruptcies that we fear will inevitably follow if harsh days-at-sea restrictions are placed on people who will not be given an adequate opportunity to make a return on the capital that they have invested in their ports?
  I hope that the Minister will also answer the question raised by a number of hon. Members about those who will be made redundant, but will not benefit from decommissioning payments.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: My constituency includes the coastline from Paignton to Cornwall—about 88 miles of fishing coast. A number of ships in the area fish crab and lobster, which are not part of the quota. Will those crustacea be exempted from the days-at-sea and tie-up proposals?
  I understand that, if the decommissioning grant is increased from £25 million to £100 million, the European Commission will give 70 per cent. back. If the British Government contributed £100 million, they would get £70 million back. As the £30 million that would go to the fishermen would be taxed, for £100 million given to our fishermen for decommissioning, the Government would have to spend only £20 million. Why can we not do the same as so many other European countries, which, having put such amounts into decommissioning, have taken many fishing boats off the seas and—rightly—recompensed the fishermen involved?
  I believe not only that we should not implement the days-at-sea and tie-up provisions until other countries are involved in similar legislation, but—more importantly—that we should not do so until that legislation is also enforced by those countries. We have to be satisfied that every European country that fishes our seas has exactly the same rules and regulations as ours and that they are enforced in the same way.
  I may have my figures wrong, but I understand that this country has about 270 fisheries officers enforcing the regulations on our fishermen. I think that there are only 17 —or is it 27?—such officers in Spain. Curiously, they seem all to be based in Madrid. Until there is a fair system, a
  436
  level sea as it were, there will be constant complaints from the fishing industry that the scheme is not working fairly. Fishermen will be prepared to accept the measures if they can see that they are fair and reasonable.
  I thank the Minister and his staff for their courtesy. Within a week of taking office, the Minister came to Brixham to see my fishermen and explain the matter to me and to them. He also satisfied himself that they had a real problem.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I was glad to hear that the Minister will come to Northern Ireland if he is invited, but I was surprised to hear that the Minister responsible for fishing in Northern Ireland has not yet invited him to Northern Ireland. We shall certainly make representations to that Minister to ensure that such an invitation is extended.
  I was disappointed by the belligerency of the Minister's speech. It displayed that element of arrogance that has been one of the problems with the Conservative Government in recent years, and it is the reason why they have lost support in the country. I hope that the Minister will listen more to hon. Members, including Northern Ireland Members. He was not prepared to do that earlier in the debate.
  There are two major problems with the legislation, the first of which is the days at sea. That has caused great unease in the fishing industry throughout the United Kingdom, and we heard about it from the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). In Northern Ireland, there is a special issue. Unlike the other fishing fleets, our fleet is in the Irish sea with a fleet from another nation—the Republic of Ireland. The fish obviously do not recognise any political border: they swim up and down the Irish sea.
  The legislation will instruct the fishermen of Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie, "You must remain tied up in your ports and watch the southern Irish fishermen catching fish in the Irish sea that you should have the chance to catch." That is the discriminatory element in the legislation, and that is why it has been rejected by the fishermen of County Down.
  There is still a lack of information about the impact of the decommissioning scheme. The Minister was short on detail. He did not answer the question, "Will it bring about a reduction of only about 5 per cent. in the size of the British fleet?" That has been suggested by the industry and by Opposition Members, but so far no Minister has come out openly and said that the £25 million scheme will have such an impact. We want an answer. What will be the impact of the decommissioning scheme?
  Secondly, we need more detail about the average payments that will be made for fishing boats. Fishermen have no idea of the average amount that they will get. There have been vague suggestions of a tendering scheme. That is mentioned in the regulations and it was dealt with in two or three words by the Minister, but we have had no details about how the tendering scheme will work and what it will mean in pounds for the fishing boats. We need some guidance on that before we can reach our decision.
  Postponing the implementation of the days-at-sea regulations until 1 January 1994 has only put off the evil day for a few months. As the fishing boats have applied for their allocation of days and the procedure is now under

  437
  way, will that procedure be stopped, will it still go ahead and all the fishing vessels be told how many half days they will have at sea, or will the scheme stop in the meantime?
  11.14 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I must congratulate the Minister on a welcome performance at the Dispatch Box. Frankly, I dreaded it when he began his speech in such a combative fashion, and I thought that he was another in a long line of Ministers who would trample on us. However, it was a successful speech, introducing the decommissioning scheme that we have been awaiting for so long.
  First, what took the Government so long? Why do all the arguments against a decommissioning scheme that were made with such theological certitude by the previous Minister two years ago no longer apply? However, it would be churlish to go on.
  Secondly, the Minister has listened. I made a plea personally to him when he took office not to get into the same deadlock trench warfare as the previous Minister, but to listen to the fishermen and give them a chance and to use the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act as a sanction to get them to agree to conservation measures which would be much more effective in the long run. I am almost pathetically, gibberingly grateful to the Government for having listened and agreed to postpone the Act. I hope that they will now consider the possibility of abandoning it altogether.
  The saving that would accrue from not implementing the Act, no matter what the costs are, whether £8 million or £4 million a year, would be the kernel of a bigger decommissioning scheme if the money from the EC were added to it, and that would achieve the purposes we want.
  The decommissioning scheme that we are discussing today is not big enough. If it will take out 5 per cent. of the effort over three years, and if we take into account technical creep—which is not the name of the previous Minister, but the effects of technical improvement—we are trying to take out 20 per cent. plus 6 per cent. while achieving only 5 per cent., so 21 per cent. of the effort is still to be taken out and the scheme goes nowhere near to achieving that. Therefore, we need a bigger scheme.
  I shall make one final point on tendering. It would be much better to have it in one big bag, to use all the money at once and to achieve the cumulative effect of taking out a big effort earlier. The problem is that we cannot target tendering at those vessels which took the most damage and which would deplete the stocks the most; it will go to those in desperate need. Had we introduced a scheme five years ago, people would have had the choice. Now we urgently need to get out first and quickly those with most damage. Tendering would have a disproportionate effect in Grimsby where many older vessels would be anxious to get out and would put in quite a low tender, but that would pull the prop out from under the Grimsby industry in a disastrous way.
  I hope that the Minister will think again about tendering and about a bigger scheme, but most of all I hope he will use the breathing space which he has provided in his wisdom to get on with the conservation measures that the industry itself is taking such as segregated nets, which are a major improvement.
  I do not see why the industry should have to continue the experiments. Why can they not be carried out by the
  438
  Department itself and by the Sea Fish Industry Authority rather than by the industry? National technical conservation measures have a bigger effect than the crude measure of getting out the effort by days-at-sea limitation. The Minister can tell the Commission that we have a better way and that he, the new Minister, developed it, and that is what we want.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I shall be brief in my remarks, so that others can get in.
  I noticed an article in The Sunday Telegraph entitled,
  "Those in peril cast for help as fleet flounders".
  That article by Adam Nicholson mentioned the hon.
  Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). It stated:
  "Her majority at Hastings is 6,634"
  and she is quoted as saying:
  "Anyway, I reckon that there are only 1,000 fishing votes in my constituency … Let's wait and see. I don't understand why"
  the fishermen "are so angry". I have news for the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House know why the fishermen are angry.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman should understand that, as ever, accuracy is not an attribute of many journalists.
  Mr. McFall: We now have confirmation that we cannot trust The Sunday Telegraph.
  All that we have from this debate is a three-month stay of execution for the days-at-sea legislation and a vague promise of a review of how the scheme will operate. As the House of Lords Select Committee said, it is too little, too late. We have a total of £25 million over three years.
  The real question concerns the best way to go about conservation. Should we not listen to some of the fishermen's representatives? For example, the Scottish fishermen's representatives have written to me and other Scottish Members. They have said that there should be a quick burst in one year to relieve the fleet of the excess capacity as soon as possible. We find that we are reducing the fleet by 5 per cent., but we have signed up with the EC for 19 per cent.
  The £25 million is worthy of further investigation. As the Minister knows, 70 per cent. of that grant is from the Community. Given that it is taxed with a combination of income tax and corporation tax, we could be talking about a figure of £3 million or £4 million. That is a miserly sum from the Government. Does not the Minister accept, even at this stage, the findings of the House of Lords Select Committee, that an effective decommissioning scheme will require £100 million, 70 per cent. of which can be covered by the EC Commission?
  It is sometimes said that making sense of the fishing industry row is like trying to catch hold of an eel in a barrel of oil. Bob Allan of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation told me that the tie-up requirements, like no other single issue, have united the industry. Some questions arise from that. As has been mentioned in the past, between 1987 and 1991, nothing happened because of the Government's inactivity. Because of that Government failure, the EC Commission refused to make Community financing available to the United Kingdom fishing industry. Did the Government ever challenge that? How much Community aid was lost to United Kingdom fishermen as a result?

  439
  The Government need to adopt a system of management by objectives, driven by expert advice, and a decommissioning scheme informed by genuine dialogue. That genuine dialogue has been missing until now. As some speakers have said, this is about people and communities. It is about the viability of communities. The social consequences are extremely important in all fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom.
  The Government could tonight give a commitment that they will enter into that meaningful dialogue. The Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office could give an indication of when the Minister will meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation so that it can get its point of view across.
  The scheme buys some time for the Government, but, sadly, it does not buy a future for the industry, and we shall have to return to it.
  11.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): It was rather disappointing, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State had brought new ideas and attitudes to the fishing industry, to hear such a niggardly and miserable response from the Opposition.
  We have shown flexibility in fishing policy. We are glad to hold meetings and we were frequently asked when we would hold them. We shall, of course, hold them as soon as they can be arranged, but it is important not to say that we shall meet tomorrow or the day after, but for the fishing industry to advance constructive ideas. We are giving it the chance to do that between now and the end of September. We will consider its views carefully and reach decisions between then and the end of the year.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Hector Monro: I have only about four minutes left.
  The days-at-sea restrictions are postponed until 1 January and we shall consider the position at that time. In the meantime, we shall proceed with the £25 million decommissioning scheme over three years. That is an important step forward. Applications have been coming in steadily in the past few days and now approach 150 already. Fishermen see it as a good scheme.
  We will continue our consultations in Europe and ensure that, as far as possible, the measures that we have agreed are fair throughout the Community.
  We must be absolutely certain that we are conserving our fishing stocks; everything must be complementary to that and it must be scientific conservation, not just the good ideas of individual fishermen. It will be a constructive period for discussion. That is in the interests of the fishing industry, producer organisations and the processing industry, which has a large number of employees to be considered.
  I see no reason why we should not achieve an amicable solution to the difficulties that have been facing the fishing industry this year. It can be done with good will on all sides, and I should have liked a bit more good will from the Opposition tonight. Let us see what we can achieve in the rest of the year.
  440
  I warmly thank my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for the many important ideas they advanced. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who was rather more generous than usual. I say to him that the sum to be met by the taxpayer is £20 million, which is the difference between the Fontainebleau agreement and the rebate.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) mentioned the pelagic fleet. With the postponement of the days-at-sea regulations, that is an important issue, because it will give a clear run for the rest of the year and plenty of time to discuss the position for next year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made an important contribution. He must remember that the decommissioning scheme is only for boats longer than 10 m, whereas many of the boats he mentioned will be under 10 m. We must discuss the other issue when we meet the fishing organisations.
  Mr Steen: Will my hon. Friend say something about crabs and lobsters?
  Sir Hector Monro: Charm has a better chance of intervening than the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I shall be pushed to say anything about crabs and lobsters in two minutes, but my hon. Friend and his fishermen will be able to put their good points to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  I re-emphasise that we are giving the fishing industry a real opportunity. We have backed right off the days-at-sea restrictions to allow plenty of time to consult. I say to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that we shall file applications, and fishermen will be able to hold discussions with the Ministry. If they are unhappy with the decision made by the Department, they can appeal to the tribunal. We shall thus be able to determine each boat's eligibility.
  We have had a worthwhile debate. I am glad that we have been able to get across the issues that are so important to the fishermen, who have a great opportunity to discuss them with Ministers. I hope that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion before the end of the year, which will open new opportunities for the fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 22.

  Division No. 326]

  [11.29 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Graham

  Ancram, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bates, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Colvin, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Congdon, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Booth, Hartley

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  441

  Day, Stephen

  Milligan, Stephen

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dover, Den

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Duncan, Alan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Fabricant, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Forman, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Fry, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Gorst, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Spring, Richard

  Harris, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Stephen, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Stern, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Streeter, Gary

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Hughes Robert G (Harrow W)

  Sykes, John

  Jack, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Thomason, Roy

  Knapman, Roger

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

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

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Trend, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Legg, Barry

  Waller, Gary

  Lidington, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Lightbown, David

  Watts, John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Wells, Bowen

  MacKay, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Maclean, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Wilshire, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Wood, Timothy

  Mans, Keith

  Marland, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Merchant, Piers

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Beggs, Roy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cryer, Bob

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Salmond, Alex

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Simpson, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Welsh, Andrew

  Macdonald, Catum

  Maginnis, Ken

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mahon, Alice

  Mr. John D. Taylor and Mr. David Trimble.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1345), dated 25th May 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

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

  VALUE ADDED TAX
  That the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1507), dated 15th June 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Print Works (Emissions)
  11.41 pm
  Ms Mildred Gordon: I present a petition from 1,645 people who are resident in east London. It expresses concern about the increased incidence of asthma, of meningitis and of cancer in London and about the possible connection between newspaper print works, many of which have now relocated from Fleet street to residential areas in Tower Hamlets, and those diseases. The petititoners note that traces of toxic compounds associated with printing have been found in the blood and urine samples of local residents and in household dust and drinking water.
  The petitioners request that an immediate study be undertaken of the effects of combined emissions to the atmosphere and to water from materials and chemical compounds used by national newspaper print works in the docklands area.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Young People (Benefits)
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson:- I present a petition gathered by people in Nottingham which comprises over 6,000 signatures. It declares the petitioners' concern about the poverty affecting the lives of young people as a result of the harsh and discriminatory nature of the age-related benefits system. The petition says:
  The Petitioners therefore request that, in order to alleviate youth poverty, the House of Commons urge the Government to restore the right to income support to 16 and 17 year olds who cannot find work or a suitable youth training placement, and to end the discriminatory treatment of 18–24 year olds, who live independently, by restoring their right to benefits on the same basis as those aged over 25.
  To lie upon the Table.

  UNESCO
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Conway].
  11.43 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak on the subject of UNESCO. I pay tribute to the many colleagues who have put the case for the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO since we left it in 1985. I first pay tribute to the most eminent of those colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has so often said that the United Kingdom should never have left UNESCO and that the earlier we return the better.
  Secondly, I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who, since we left UNESCO, has consistently called for us to rejoin. Indeed, in the debate when we left UNESCO my hon. Friend said:
  "Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be received with deep sadness and will be greeted by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with a certain degree of bitterness? We shall leave our friends in UNESCO to argue our case and continue the battle that my right hon. Friend began so well and pursued with such vigilance … I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that it cannot be in Britain's interests to reduce our influence in such an important international organisation."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 451.]
  I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), a member of the United Nations Association working committee on UNESCO, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), the chairman of the United Nations parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who is also here this evening and is a member of the UNA working committee, and many other hon. Members whose names are on the early-day motion on the order paper today. That early-day motion urging the Government to rejoin UNESCO was signed by 247 hon. Members.
  I pay warm tribute to the staff of the United Nations office in London and in particular Mr. Rashid Kareh, who has been so supportive throughout these years. I also pay tribute to the other organisations which have kept in contact with UNESCO in professional ways. They range from the Royal Society of Chemistry, of which so many of us are honorary members, to organisations such as Exeter university, which receives fellows and chairs from United Nations organisations such as UNESCO.
  The purpose and history of UNESCO is well known to the House. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we left in 1985. Our knowledge of UNESCO has been kept alive and warm since then by the creation soon after that, at the suggestion of several Members of Parliament and of another place and of professional and academic people, of a committee under the umbrella of the United Nations Organisation. Roughly half its membership of 40 comes from the House of Commons or the other place. That is why we have had debates in both Houses. The more recent ones were on 22 May and 4 December 1992 in this place and on 14 March in the other place. I suggest that the work of that group has kept knowledge of UNESCO so alive in this place.
  It is worth recalling that the United Kingdom was the founder member of UNESCO. It came into being as a result of the initiative taken by Rab Butler, known to so
  444
  many of us when we were children or young people entering into politics, who was then President of the Board of Education of the United Kingdom, and Sir Malcolm Roberts, the then chairman of the British Council. In 1942 they invited Ministers of Education of the allied countries to form a conference of allied Ministers of Education. That conference was UNESCO's starting point. It was a manifestation of a climate of hope for the future. It was an initiative of the United Kingdom.
  The principal purpose of UNESCO described in the constitution was and remains
  "to contribute to peace and security be promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed … by the Charter of the United Nations."
  Indeed, the first paragraph of the preamble to the constitution reads:
  "since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
  Today, from that early beginning in the dark days of the second world war in London, 173 member states belong to UNESCO. Who are the absentees? The most marked of the absentees have to be the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
  I greatly respect the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister in this and other matters. I suggest —I believe that he will agree with me on this—that UNESCO is a changed body. When we left in 1985, it was overstaffed, slack in thinking, and top-heavy. Although we were sorry to leave, the Minister for Overseas Development at the time made at least a partially convincing case. I have, however, always agreed with the French that the person who is absent is the person who is always wrong, and that we would have done better to have stayed in and reformed UNESCO even more swiftly.
  Let me give one example of the transformed UNESCO under its present management. On 25 June this year-12 days ago—President Yeltsin met UNESCO's director-general in Moscow on the occasion of the signing of a memorandum of co-operation. That is a most remarkable document. I have in my hand a press report of it, sent to me by Mr. Tom Forstenzer, from the Paris office of UNESCO. It tells us that, on 25 June, Fredrico Mayor, the director-general of UNESCO, and the President of the Russian Federation met in Moscow to sign a memorandum to strengthen
  "co-operation between Russia and UNESCO in the Organisation's fields of competence.
  In particular, it concentrated—
  on support for, and development of, democratic change in the country"—
  a most important and critical focus—
  "preservation of the cultural and natural heritage, transmission of information and training of personnel (in management, copyright and other sectors)."
  It spans the sectors of culture, education, science and communication.
  The press report says:
  "Some key activities in the field of culture are in the reconstruction and modernisation of the Bolshoi Theatre and the Russian State Library, both in Moscow, and the Hermitage in St Petersburg."
  Those are places well known to many of us. On top of that,
  "special attention is given to the EUROLINGUAUNI project, which aims at improving knowledge of foreign languages and increasing student exchanges in the human sciences. UNESCO will also assist in the preparation of new legislation regarding education."

  445
  Is not something of that magnitude a project of such value that the United Kingdom and the United States of America should not only warmly welcome it, but, in an honourable world, wish to be involved in it? Do not we honestly wish to participate in something of such value to the world? We pride ourselves on being in the forefront of assisting Russia and other former Soviet Union countries to inherit the democratic traditions that we have matured, and to learn them from us. Why then are we content to be on the outside while those important and exciting activities are going on?
  That was not the only large activity that took place that week. UNESCO was a meeting place for all those around the world who are expert in different ways of protecting and restoring ancient stone and brick. One need only look across the road to see how wonderfully Westminster abbey has been enhanced by the tremendous programme that we have undertaken. Was not it France that started that initiative, many years ago, under the banner of UNESCO, in cleaning up the wonderful monuments of Paris? We have been johnny-come-latelys to that work. Should we not have been part of that conference as well?
  This week, UNESCO is home to a meeting of specialists in the teaching of science at primary and secondary level —a matter of major concern not just in the United Kingdom but in all other countries. There is also a high-level meeting of experts on solar energy, the solar summit. Each of those important recent events shows us that UNESCO is acting in sectors of vital interest to the United Kingdom—preserving monuments, exploring more effective teaching methods that link the latest research to early learning experience, advancing renewable energy techniques and building bridges to newly fledged democracies. What more exciting programme could any of us wish to be involved in?
  I am indebted to Dr. Colin Power, the director of education of UNESCO, for giving me a breakdown, in percentage tenns as well as in actuals, of the current expenditure of UNESCO. The budget is remarkably small for the large undertakings in which UNESCO is involved. I remind the House that the biennial figures are 38 per cent. on education; 22.5 per cent. on science; 17 per cent. on culture; 11.2 per cent. on communication; 9.3 per cent. on social sciences and 2 per cent. which is sectoral. That breakdown is of particular importance to us all.
  Under the education heading, I have learnt of the excellence of today's UNESCO. I visited the head office in Paris recently where I met for the second time Mr. Frederico Mayor, the director-general. I also met Dr. Colin Power, who, as I have already said, is assistant director-general for education. I met the director of the combating illiteracy project, Mr. Peter Higginson, and also Birgitte Moller, who is the chief of section for contracts with other donors. I met another wonderful donor organiser, Ms Basma Irsheid, who is chief of the unit for good will ambassadors and the special adviser for Arab funding sources. I also met the senior special adviser and deputy director-general, Mr. Sharma, and Mr. Tom Forstenzer, the executive officer.
  I found UNESCO in Paris today to be a centre of excellence, with a rigour of thinking and an economy of style carried out by top-flight people with whom, I believe, the United Kingdom should wish to be associated. I sought—and I believe will achieve—a contract partnership between UNESCO and the AMAR appeal to provide education in refugee camps.
  446
  You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have an interest in helping the plight of children, particularly in refugee camps. I approached UNESCO to assist a particular group of Iraqi children in south-west Iran who have been in camps there for more than two years. I knew that only UNESCO would be able to assist me because, within the United Nations family, UNESCO holds the mandate on education and recognises education as a basic human right and its essential place in any scheme that proposes to offer humanitarian assistance to the young.
  UNESCO seeks to assist in the provision of sustainable education resources for children and young people with a view to protecting their individual futures in a developing world. I believe, and I have put this proposal to Paris, that UNESCO has skills and resources that can be channelled effectively to the Iraqi Shia community children in south-west Iran in partnership with the AMAR appeal.
  I sought this debate tonight not just because of the general excellence of UNESCO. Many colleagues have made such points over the past seven years with greater knowledge than I have. I sought this debate because, in recent weeks, I have had this hands-on, basic experience of the excellence of UNESCO. After all, UNESCO could have said to me, "There are just a few thousand children down there. They're out of sight. There are only 6,500 or 10,000, so what are you talking about? What has that got to do with us? What have camps and emergencies to do with education?"
  Instead, Mr. Frederico Mayor said, "Of course we shall help. We will do all we can with you to meet the childrens' and teachers' needs." That concern for the education of young people caused me to request this debate. I believe that only UNESCO could open the doors. For two years earlier I had sought to bring education to those children. It was not until I went to UNESCO that I found an understanding and professionalism and ready response that has already begun to show fruition in partnership with the AMAR appeal and our host country, Iran, for those children.
  I have also referred to the high percentage of UNESCO's budget that is devoted to science. As a member of the Medical Research Council from this place, I have a particular interest in that. I referred earlier to the Royal Society of Chemistry. I have been in contact with the society's parliamentary affairs officer, Mr. Stephen Benn, who is known to many of us. He told me of the Royal Society's wish that we should rejoin UNESCO. Indeed, he tells me that the council has now agreed to submit a formal request to the Government in support of United Kingdom re-entry and that the council is taking a close interest in our debate.
  He reminds me that UNESCO carries out the work that the society promotes—the important work that there is still to do in science and environmental work, such as the need in 1992–95 to provide advanced training for 3,000 mathematicians, physicists, chemists and biologists, to award research grants and to establish 15 to 20 pilot projects for updating teaching materials and science curricula.
  The recent White Paper on science surely impressed upon us all the importance of the development of science for the United Kingdom. That is one good reason why we should rejoin UNESCO.
  Perhaps it was because of the excellence of UNESCO's commitment to science that, on 20 May this year, 37 Nobel laureates who are residents of the United States of

  447
  America and outside it personally presented a declaration with other eminences to President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore. I have that declaration with me. The signatures are astounding in their importance and value to the world of science and in the wider world of us all.
  A concurrent resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives and the United States Senate at the same time. That was followed in June by two full days of hearings. One was spent on hearings from nongovernmental organisations and one was spent on government organisations. That large piece of work stemmed from the efforts made by the Paris office to show the United States of America that UNESCO is indeed transformed. Perhaps because of that, the concurrent resolution asks the President to
  "develop a strategy to bring the United States back into active and full membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation."
  Congressman Howard Berman said:
  "The US was right to leave UNESCO in 1984. Politicisation of the communications programmes"—
  perhaps that was the nub of the issue here—
  "and discrimination against … a member state".
  It is a long statement, but he goes on to say:
  "We should rejoin now because UNESCO has solved the problems which led to our withdrawal. From protecting the global environment to building independent news organisations to educating the world's youth, UNESCO can significantly further our national interests in international intellectual and cultural exchanges, free communication across borders, the promotion of democracy, sustainable development, and international economic competitiveness.
  The US was one of the founding members of UNESCO, because, in the wake of world war Two, we profoundly understood the importance of education, culture, science and communication to the maintenance of international peace and stability."
  I commend the concurrent resolution to the House. It states:
  "UNESCO has elected new leadership, instituted tightened financial controls and strategic planning, cut staff and budget, renewed professionalism, restored recognition of intellectual property, returned the organisation to the principle of an unfettered, independent international press, therefore addressing and redressing the criticisms which formed the justification for the United States' withdrawal."
  Those critical points are surely even more vital to those of us who watched the fiasco of the human rights congress in Vienna, when the Minister himself fell foul of its organisers' incompetence and was unable to deliver his speech on behalf of this nation. Surely UNESCO, which is now an excellent organisation, as witnessed by those statements in the concurrent resolution, is a body which can promote human rights ideals in the way in which it is tasked to do.
  Now is the time to show our good faith in the ideals and practicalities of UNESCO and rejoin the organisation that we promised to rejoin when adequate reform was accomplished. All of us now agree that that is the case. I ask the Minister if we can honestly remain credible if we delay.
  I refer to the point made by the previous Minister of Overseas Development when he was questioned whether we were merely running where the Americans led and simply copying the withdrawal of the United States from UNESCO. I quote his reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn):
  448
  "The right hon. Gentleman has a mania of finding conspiracy wherever he looks. We have been under no pressure from the United States Government to make this decision. They have pursued their policy quite independently of our own. I say firmly to the right hon. Gentleman that, although we have decided that this international organisation is not doing its job effectively, that in no sense means that, we are opposed to international organisations or the United Nations."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 450.]
  I think that I am correct in saying that, this afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—I wait to be corrected if the wording is not accurate—that, if the United States or Singapore were to rejoin UNESCO, the United Kingdom situation would be reviewed and a political decision would have to be made. In essence, that means that, if the United Kingdom was alone on the outside, the Government would have to act.
  It is time to act now before we lose credibility. I have put those two quotations together to highlight our need to think and act independently on such important matters. I know the constraints that are on our Government and their budget and those that are pressed on the Foreign Office and its work internationally—which I support so much—through the Overseas Development Administration, the British Council and the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Indeed, I know about the new funding pressures that are put on us by our membership of the European Community.
  The Minister could ask people such as myself and others to assist him to raise the money. Does he agree in principle that UNESCO is an organisation that we would be right to rejoin if we could find the cash?
  12.7 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on securing this Adjournment debate on a subject of some importance. She knows that we last had an Adjournment debate on this subject on 22 May 1992. Indeed, we discussed it more recently because earlier today I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on precisely this issue. My hon. Friend, who has obviously had a report of what I said in Committee, will find that what I say now bears a striking resemblance to what I said then—in short, the Government are capable of considerable consistency when they must.
  I shall reduce to a few points the position that we have adopted with regard to UNESCO. The United Kingdom and Singapore left UNESCO at the end of 1985, one year after the Americans left, and for broadly the same reasons. We have remained in close contact with the Americans and have shared assessments of the organisation ever since. My hon. Friend asked what I said in Committee about rejoining UNESCO. I broadly said that that creates a new situation. If the Americans and the Government of Singapore were to decide to return to UNESCO, we would have to review our position but without any commitment.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister knows that I am no longer the Opposition spokesman dealing with UNESCO, but I was for nine years. I know that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is now our spokesman, when I say that we agree with the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss

  449
  Nicholson) that Britain should never have come out of UNESCO and should now be in it. The Minister is implying that, if the Americans return, we will return on their coat tails.
  Does the Minister agree that it might be appropriate for Britain, as a founding country of UNESCO, to take a lead and not to follow on this important issue?
  Mr. Hogg: We dealt with that point before the Select Committee. The answer is that at present we are in decent company in remaining out. If the Governments of Singapore and the United States rejoin, we shall be isolated. That would create a new situation, and we would then want to reconsider our position but without any commitment.
  When we look back to our decision in 1985, we are satisfied that our decision to leave was sound. Our reason for withdrawal, shared by the Americans, was prompted by concern about some six problem areas: programme concentration; duplication of the activities of other United Nations agencies; special programme issues—my hon. Friend referred to those—particularly the New World Information and Communications Order; decentralisation; administration and efficiency; and budget.
  Since then, the position has changed because satisfactory progress has been achieved in all those areas, with the exception of decentralisation. UNESCO still lacks a coherent policy on decentralisation and it still needs to present a focused approach, drawing together the strands of its broad mandate, from science to education and culture to promoting freedom of the press. We, like many member states, wish to see more effort devoted to achieving further concentration.
  However, if we were now members of UNESCO, we would probably not leave. I accept, too, that in an ideal world it is desirable to belong to all the United Nations organisations. I accept the desirability of universal membership.
  450
  A major constraint is the cost of resuming our UNESCO membership. Were we to rejoin today, our assessed contribution for the rest of 1993 would be some £4.5 million. In 1994 and 1995, those costs would be almost £11 million a year, falling to £8 million if the United States were to rejoin. We would also need to weigh up the cost of additional staff both at our UNESCO observer mission and in London to deal with extra UNESCO duties, and with the re-established United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO. Those costs would amount to about an extra £250,000 a year.
  The money for resuming our UNESCO membership would almost certainly have to come from the ODA bilateral programmes. There are no surplus funds and no probability of new money. Therefore, a decision on if and when to rejoin depends on spending priorities.
  Since 1986, most of the money saved from what could have been our assessed contribution to UNESCO—£6.4 million in 1986—has remained in the ODA's budget, and the funds have been used for activities that are well targeted and over which the ODA can exercise tight control.
  In 1986, the former UNESCO money was reallocated to activities falling within the areas of UNESCO's competence. The ODA continues to allocate substantial sums for priority activities in those areas. There is a danger that, were we to rejoin UNESCO, we would have to on such allocations. In short, Ministers would have to make some difficult decisions on shifting money for existing worthy projects from the bilateral programme.
  In broadly summing up the position, I accept that UNESCO has carried out substantial reforms. There remain areas in which—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having been continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 73 countries whose nationals require visas for all member states of the European Community referred to in the press release issued by Ministers responsible for immigration at the conclusion of their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The nationals of the following 73 countries at present require visas for all member states of the European Community.

  Afghanistan

  Kirgizstan

  Albania

  Laos

  Algeria

  Lebanon

  Angola

  Liberia

  Armenia

  Libya

  Azerbaijan

  Madagascar

  Bangladesh

  Mali

  Belarus

  Mauritania

  Bhutan

  Moldova

  Bulgaria

  Mongolia

  Burma

  Morocco

  Burundi

  Mozambique

  Cambodia

  Nepal

  Cameroon

  Nigeria

  Cape Verde

  Oman

  Central African Republic

  Pakistan

  Chad

  Philippines

  China

  Romania

  Comoros

  Russia

  Congo

  Rwanda

  Cuba

  Sao Tome-e-Principe

  Djibouti

  Saudi Arabia

  Egypt

  Senegal

  Equatorial Guinea

  Somalia

  Ethiopia

  Sri Lanka

  Gabon

  Sudan

  Georgia

  Syria

  Ghana

  Tajikistan

  Guinea

  Tunisa

  Guinea-Bissau

  Turkey

  Haiti

  Turkmenistan

  India

  Ukraine

  Indonesia

  Uzbekistan

  Iran

  Vietnam

  Iraq

  Yeman

  Jordan

  Zaire

  Kazakhstan

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many and what proportion of cases in each year since 1979 he and his predecessors have exercised their discretion outside the immigration rules where, on hearing an appeal under the Immigration Act 1971 the adjudicator has upheld the Home Secretary's decision to refuse indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom but made a recommendation for the exercise of such discretion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available. All recommendations made by adjudicators receive careful consideration.

  Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many free copies of(a) the recent White Paper on the future of the police and (b) the report of the Sheehy inquiry have been made available to the superintendents' associations, the police federations, the trade unions and police associations representing officers in the (i) British Transport police, (ii) Ministry of Defence police, (iii) Atomic Energy police, (iv) Northern Ireland Airports police, (v) Royal Parks constabulary, (vi) Port of Tilbury police, (vii) Port of Dover police, (viii) Port of Liverpool police and (ix) Port of Bristol police;

  (2) how many free copies of the White Paper on the future of the police have been made available to (a) the superintendents' associations and (b) the police federa-tions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Twelve complimentary copies of the White Paper on Police Reform were sent to the Superintendents Association of England and Wales. Six complimentary copies were sent to both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation of England and Wales. The proposals contained in the White Paper relate to the police service in England and Wales and are concerned primarily with reforms to police forces maintained under the Police Act 1964 and the Metropolitan and City of London police forces. The Superintendents Associations and the Police Federations of Scotland and Northern Ireland were therefore not provided with complimentary copies. Nor were the trade unions and associations representing officers in the other forces mentioned.

  Each of the associations and forces mentioned received two complimentary copies of the report of the Sheehy inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards. The Superintendents Association of England and Wales subsequently requested, and received, a further 60 free copies.

  Heathrow (Passenger Questioning)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many intending passengers for Northern Ireland have been detained for questioning at Heathrow in the past 10 years; how many were subsequently charged with terrorist-related offences; and how many have been convicted.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, a search of records by the Metropolitan police reveals that in 1992 a total of 1,627 people were asked, during examination under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 at Heathrow, to complete an embarkation card in accordance with paragraph 5 of schedule 5 to the Act. One passenger en route to Northern Ireland was detained under paragraph 6 of the schedule. He was not subsequently charged with a terrorist-related offence.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly cost of remanding an individual in Belmarsh prison.
  129
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange a reply.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 7 July 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question about the weekly cost of remanding an individual in Belmarsh prison.

  The cost for 1992–93 is not yet available. It will be published in the Annual Report for 1992–93 on the work of the Prison Service in November 1993.

  The 1991–92 figure for the average weekly cost of holding an individual in Belmarsh prison was £673. A rise in the average weekly population from 558 in 1991–92 to 732 in 1992–93 is expected to reduce this cost considerably.

  Greater Manchester Chief Constable
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable for Greater Manchester; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet met the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police.

  Drug Squads
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are now employed in regional crime squad drugs wings.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are currently 375 police officers employed in regional crime squad drugs wings.

  Tourist Resorts (Crime)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about property-related crimes in tourist resorts.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Centrally held statistics of reported crime do not distinguish between tourist and other areas.

  Rochester Row Police Station
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cells at Rochester Row police station are available to hold prisoners; how many people have been held in those cells for more than 24 hours during the past three months; what is the average June temperature in those cells at 5 am; whether heating pipes are, in summer, increasing the temperature in those cells; and how those cells are ventilated or cooled in summer.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are 10 cells and 12 detention rooms at Rochester Row police station. Not more than five prisoners have been held at Rochester Row for more

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police

  Burglary

  Theft of vehicle

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4,512

  4,728

  4,630

  1,322

  1,534

  1,635

  Leicestershire

  16,057

  21,526

  23,251

  8,499

  10,751

  11,219

  Derbyshire

  12,527

  18,500

  22,225

  5,559

  7,410

  9,070

  Cleveland

  16,559

  17,278

  20,504

  11,712

  11,712

  12,498

  Greater Manchester

  87,855

  97,715

  103,390

  55,338

  55,338

  57,985

  130
  than 24 hours between 1 April and 30 June 1993. The average temperature in the cells and detention rooms is not recorded. There are no heating pipes. Ventilation is by air brick.

  Drug Traffickers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest totals for assets confiscated from convicted drug traffickers and assets frozen pending trials for drug trafficking offences.

  Mr. Maclean
  For information regarding assets confiscated under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 27 May at col.722.

  The 1992 data will not be available until the autumn. Information on assets frozen pending trials is not collected centrally.

  Police (Stress-related Illness)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) custody officers, (b) custody sergeants and (c) rota sergeants have taken five or more days off work through stress-related illness in (i) North Wales and (b) Dyfed Powys police force areas in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be collected from the forces in question only at disproportionate cost.

  National Firearms Board
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 743, what progress is being made on establishing a national firearms board.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently considering whether to establish a new civilian firearms control board. A comprehensive revision of the original feasibility study which was circulated with the consultation paper last year is currently under way.

  Crime Statistics
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the incidence of(a) burglary, (b) car theft and (c) assault for each year since 1990 for (i) Hammersmith and Fulham, (ii) Leicestershire. (iii) Derbyshire, (iv) Cleveland and (v) Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to the numbers of notifiable offences of burglary and theft of a vehicle and is given in the table. Assault is now a summary offence and is not included in the notifiable offence series.

  Homicide
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1992,Official Report, columns 104–5, if he will update the table for women homicide victims involving shotguns.

  Offences currently recorded as homicide in which the victim was female and a relationship between the suspect and victim was domestic and where a shotgun was used—England and Wales

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Durham

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  10

  13

  10

  10

  9

  11

  9

  Notes:

  1. Offences currently recorded as homicide as at 14 September 1992.

  2. The term "domestic" includes the following relationships of victim to suspect: son or daughter; parent; spouse; cohabitant or former spouse or cohabitant; other family; lover or former lover including spouse's lover or lover's spouse or other associate.

  Information for 1992 is not yet available.

  Art Smuggling
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the level of international art smuggling through London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The detection of attempted evasions of the United Kingdom's import and export regulations are matters for Her Majesty's Commissioners
  132
  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table.

  of Customs and Excise. The Government deplore the illegal export of works of art and other cultural goods and is working in international forums to reduce it.

  A recently agreed EC directive provides for the restitution of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of one member state to that of another. The Government are also participating in the drafting of a possible UNIDROIT convention on the restitution of stolen and illegally exported cultural objects.

  The Government welcome the initiative by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to establish an artefacts classification and identification system, which has

  133
  already led to the recovery of stolen works of art, and support the continuing use of Interpol to trace stolen objects abroad.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for smuggling works of art were obtained in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  For England and Wales records held centrally from 1987 to 1989 show no prosecutions under the relevant sections of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Information collected centrally for 1990 and 1991 does not identify offences committed under the aforesaid Act from other summary offences.

  Similar information is not collected centrally for Northern Ireland and is not separately identifiable for Scotland.

  Icklingham Bronzes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal investigation is to be carried out by his Department into the case of the Icklingham bronzes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  After an investigation by Suffolk Constabulary the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with criminal offences. The question of ownership of the Icklingham bronzes is now a matter for the civil courts and not something in which the Home Office can intervene.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of the report of the Sheehy inquiry into "Police Responsibilities and Rewards" were released to the press before 9 am on Wednesday 30 June.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Metropolitan Police (Empty Property)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of empty residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham in the ownership of the Metropolitan police and the type of accommodation available; how long each property has been vacant; and what is the intended future use.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is as follows:

  Property

  Type

  Period vacant (months)

  Future use

  16 Bearsted rise

  House

  3

  Under offer1

  Havelock house, Forest hill

  Flat

  27

  Awaiting allocation2

  Havelock house, Forest hill

  Flat

  11

  Awaiting allocation2

  Havelock house, Forest hill

  Flat

  6

  Under offer1

  Moore house, Willow way

  Flat

  25

  Under disposal3

  Moore house, Willow way

  Flat

  21

  Under disposal3

  Moore house, Willow way

  Flat

  17

  Under disposal3

  Moore house, Willow way

  Flat

  12

  Under disposal3

  134

  1 "Under offer"—allocated to a police officer.

  2 "Awaiting allocation"—available for offer.

  3 "Under disposal"—the flats at Moore house are being sold to a local housing association.

  Samuel Kulasingham and Premraj Sivalingham
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 635, on what date a police inquiry began into the evidence surrounding the conviction of Samuel Kulasingham and Premraj Sivalingham; when the evidence was completed; on what date it was presented to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The police were asked in April 1992 to make inquiries into allegations that Samuel Kulasingham and Premraj Sivalingham had been wrongfully convicted. A report of these inquiries was received in March 1993. After considering further representations which were received on 22 June from the solicitors acting for Mr. Kulasingham and Mr. Sivalingham, my right hon. and learned Friend decided on 5 July to refer the cases back to the Court of Appeal.

  Health Care (Prisoners)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish the first report of the director of health care for prisoners and the Health Advisory Committee's commentary on the report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The report and commentary are published today. Copies are available from the Libraries of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Villages
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on arrangements made to co-ordinate policy between the Departments for Education, of the Environment and of Social Security, on the encourage-ment of village communities and village life.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Environment has overall policy responsibility for rural affairs in England and liaises with other Government Departments, including the Departments for Education and Social Security, on matters affecting the social and economic well-being of rural England, and matters affecting village communities. The Government's countryside agencies also have a statutory duty to advise the Government. In particular, the Rural Development Commission, which is sponsored by the Department of Environment, has a number of programmes directed specifically to the enhancement of village life.

EDUCATION

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the

  135
  House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Name of NDPB and peer

  Post

  Remuneration

  Duration of appointment

  Council for National Academic Awards

  Baroness MacFarlane

  Member

  —

  4·5 years

  Lord Pearson

  Member

  —

  2 years

  National Council for Educational Technology

  Lady Parkes

  Chairman

  —

  3 years (served 1)

  Schools Examination and Assessment Council

  Lord Griffiths

  Chairman

  £275 per day (P/time)

  2 years

  Lord Skidelsky

  Member

  —

  3 years (served 1)

  University Commissioners

  Lord Butterworth

  Member

  £246 per day (P/time)

  4 years

  Universities Funding Council

  Lord Chilver

  Chairman

  £14,000 per annum (P/time)

  3 years

  Visiting Committee of the Cranfield Institute of Technology

  Lord Lewis

  Chairman

  —

  10 years

  Student Loans
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in what circumstances the student loan scheme extends to European community students attending universities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boswell
  European Community students may be eligible for a student loan if they have been ordinarily resident in the British islands for three years before the start of their course; or are refugees; or have established migrant worker status.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what account he took, in preparing his statement of 1 July on student unions, of the court judgment in the case of the university of Greenwich; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  In its plans for the reform of student unions, the Government took into account the scope for abuse that exists in the current arrangements, illustrated by the judgment in the case of the university of Greenwich. Our proposed reforms are intended to curb politically motivated activity and strengthen accountability by limiting the purposes for which institutions can pass public funds to their campus unions.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 23, if he will list the research studies from the United States of America related to the impact of class sizes which have been considered in his Department in the last four years.
  136
  Mr. Boswell
  Information relating to those appointed to our non-departmental public bodies since 1988 who are members of the House of Lords is as follows. Appointments to these bodies are made solely on the basis of the aptitude, merit and suitability of the candidates concerned. Information relating to marital circumstances or possible party candidature for Parliament is not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has noted the findings of the STAR project in Tennessee.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many households covered by a concessionary television licence are(a) living in a residential or nursing home and (b) living in a sheltered scheme as defined by the relevant concessionary licence scheme regulations;

  (2) how many additional households would qualify for a concessionary television licence if the present scheme's definition of sheltered housing were replaced by the definition of sheltered housing in paragraph 10 of schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985;

  (3) how many householders enjoy the benefit of a concessionary television licence due to preserved rights; and how many of these live in (a) residential or nursing homes and (b) in sheltered schemes;

  (4) how many additional households would be eligible for a concessionary television licence if the present requirement for all occupants of qualifying schemes to be both tenants and fully retired persons of state pensionable age or disabled were replaced by a requirement that only (a) 90 per cent. and (b) 75 per cent. of occupants need satisfy this criterion.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand from TV Licensing that 490,203 households hold a concessionary television licence by virtue of meeting the criteria laid down in the current regulations (SI 1991/436). Of these, 86,582 households are in residential homes, nursing homes and almshouses, while 403,621 are in sheltered housing schemes managed by a local authority or housing association. A further 171,415
  137
  households qualify for preserved rights to a concessionary licence, although their accommodation no longer qualifies under the regulations. Statistics on preserved rights are not broken down by the type of accommodation occupied.

  The remaining information requested by the hon. Member is not available and could not readily be estimated.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether the licensing structure he proposes for the national lottery will require retailers or advertisers to have a licence under the Bill; and what effect those arrangements will have on the ability of Post Office Counters Limited to bid to sell tickets.

  Mr. Sproat
  The references in the National Lottery etc. Bill to the "promotion" of lotteries relate to the running of lottery games.

  The Bill provides that one body may be licensed to run the lottery business as a whole, and that the same, or additional, bodies may be licensed to run lottery games which are part of the national lottery. Any body licensed to run a game must have a contract with the single main licence holder. Licences are to be issued by the director general of the national lottery. Any other company or individual which provided a service to the lottery operator, for example by printing tickets, selling tickets or producing or displaying advertisments, would operate under a contract with the licence holder, and would not be directly subject to a licence condition.

  However, such a company, just as anyone else in the United Kingdom, would be required to abide by regulations which the Secretary of State will be able to make under clause 12 of the Bill (for example, governing the age at which a person may sell or be sold lottery tickets).

  If Post Office Counters Limited [POCL] wished to enter into an agreement with a licence holder to sell lottery tickets, a licence would not be required. POCL would require the formal consent of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to compete for such work. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms confirmed on 26 November 1992 that such a consent would be forthcoming, on condition that the Bill received Royal Assent.

HEALTH

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are set down for the maintenance of workplace child care facilities for health service staff where facilities are provided for a number of different health units by one health unit if that unit acquires trust status.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for local decision.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to improve child care facilities for NHS staff;

  (2) how many day nurseries are provided for NHS staff; and what are their capacities and occupancies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for individual national health service authorities and trusts to provide for the child care 138
  needs of staff in the light of local recruitment and retention needs. Detailed information on the level of provision is not available centrally.

  HIV and AIDS
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the figure of £150,000 as the maximum grant available to organisations in the HIV-AIDS field was calculated; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what new areas of work will now receive funding using money released by the reduction on grants previously made to HIV-AIDS organisations over the sum of £150,000.

  Mr. Sackville
  The substantial maximum grant of £150,000 provides scope for significant help to be given to a wide range of HIV and AIDS organisations. It also allows a balance to be struck between HIV and AIDS and other health priorities for example within the mental health field. The decision should also be seen in the context of the substantial sums made available to the HIV and AIDS voluntary sector—nearly £12 million since 1985–86.

  GP Contracts (Health Promotion)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) of 14 June,Official Report, columns 429–30, what estimate has been made of the volume increase in prescribing resulting from the Department's new initiative to encourage health pro-motion by general practitioners to improve prevention of coronary heart disease and strokes and to set up asthma and diabetes management programmes; and what assessment has been made of the consequent savings in other health care costs, such as hospital treatment, as a result of these new programmes.

  Mr. Sackville
  As part of our "Health of the Nation" initiative, some 90 per cent. of general practitioners are planning to run health promotion programmes with the aim of encouraging people to adopt healthier lifestyles and thus to reduce morbidity and mortality. It is not possible to quantify what effect this new initiative may have on prescribing or other health care costs separately from other health care improvements.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of hospital operations which have been cancelled within three days of the agreed date for the operation in each of the four regional health authorities covering the Greater London area during the last 12 months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Deaths (Firearms)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) suicides and (b) suicides of people under 16 years involved the use of (i) shotguns and (ii) other firearms in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  139

  Numbers of suicides involving firearms (ICD E955) in England and Wales from 1979 to 1992

  Year

  Shotgun (E955.1)

  Handguns (E955.0)

  Hunting rifle (E955.2)

  Military firearm (E955.3)

  Other firearm (E955.4 )

  Total (excluding shotguns)

  Total (including shotguns)

  All ages

  Under 16s

  All ages

  Under 16s

  All ages

  Under 16s

  All ages

  Under 16s

  All ages

  Under16s

  All ages

  Under 16s

  All ages

  Under 16s

  1979

  72

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  114

  0

  114

  0

  186

  3

  1980

  73

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  143

  2

  145

  2

  218

  2

  1981

  55

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  132

  1

  132

  1

  187

  1

  1982

  70

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  101

  0

  105

  0

  175

  0

  1983

  87

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  128

  1

  131

  1

  218

  1

  1984

  100

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  109

  2

  114

  2

  214

  2

  1985

  78

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  124

  1

  126

  2

  204

  2

  1986

  99

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  91

  1

  94

  1

  193

  1

  1987

  80

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  105

  0

  107

  0

  187

  0

  1988

  101

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  110

  0

  111

  0

  212

  0

  1989

  82

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  77

  0

  77

  0

  159

  0

  1990

  78

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  79

  0

  80

  0

  158

  0

  1991

  98

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  47

  0

  48

  0

  146

  0

  1992

  80

  1

  4

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  83

  0

  88

  0

  168

  1

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a table listing the number of deaths

  Numbers of deaths involving firearms undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted (ICD E985), in England and Wales from 1979 to 1992

  Year

  Shotgun (E985.1)

  Handguns (E985.0)

  Hunting rifle (E985.2)

  Military firearm (E985.3)

  Other firearm (E985.8)

  Total (excluding shotguns)

  Total (including shotguns)

  All ages

  Under16s

  All ages

  Under16s

  All ages

  Under16s

  All ages

  Under16s

  All ages

  Under16s

  All ages

  Under16s

  All ages

  Under16s

  1979

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  19

  0

  20

  0

  27

  0

  1980

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  7

  1

  16

  1

  1981

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  8

  0

  15

  0

  1982

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  8

  0

  16

  0

  1983

  12

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  16

  0

  17

  0

  29

  0

  1984

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  1

  19

  1

  28

  1

  1985

  12

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  1

  17

  0

  29

  2

  1986

  16

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  21

  0

  37

  0

  1987

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  0

  18

  0

  32

  0

  1988

  14

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  14

  0

  28

  2

  1989

  24

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  1

  16

  0

  40

  0

  1990

  21

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  10

  0

  31

  1

  1991

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  0

  16

  0

  29

  0

  1992

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  1

  14

  1

  22

  1

  Numbers of accidental deaths involving firearms (ICD E922) in England and Wales from 1979 to 1992

  Year

  Shotgun (E922.1)

  Handguns (E922.0)

  Hunting rifle (E922.2)

  Military firearm (E922.3)

  Other firearm (E922.4)

  Unspecified (E922.9)

  Total (excluding shotguns)

  Total (including shotguns)

  Allages

  Under16s

  Allages

  Under16s

  Allages

  Under16s

  Allages

  Under16s

  Allages

  Under16s

  Allages

  Under16s

  Allages

  Under16s

  Allages

  Under16s

  1979

  6

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  5

  2

  8

  2

  14

  2

  1980

  6

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  7

  2

  9

  2

  15

  3

  1981

  9

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  7

  1

  9

  3

  18

  7

  1982

  11

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  9

  1

  11

  1

  22

  4

  1983

  9

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  5

  1

  14

  2

  1984

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  9

  1

  12

  3

  14

  4

  1985

  10

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  8

  2

  18

  2

  1986

  6

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  2

  10

  2

  16

  4

  1987

  7

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  5

  0

  12

  0

  1988

  4

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  9

  1

  13

  2

  17

  2

  1989

  11

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  6

  0

  17

  0

  1990

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  6

  0

  8

  0

  1991

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  0

  5

  0

  1992

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  0

  6

  0

  8

  0

  140
  other than suicides and homicides involving (a) shotguns and (b) other firearms in each year since 1979, listing separately the number of under-16s.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the tables.
  141

  Numbers of deaths due to legal intervention involving firearms in England and Wales from 1979 to 1992. ICD E970.

  Year

  Total

  all ages

  under 16s

  1979

  2

  0

  1980

  0

  0

  1981

  0

  0

  1982

  0

  0

  1983

  0

  0

  1984

  0

  0

  1985

  0

  0

  1986

  0

  0

  1987

  0

  0

  1988

  2

  0

  1989

  1

  0

  1990

  2

  0

  1991

  2

  0

  1992

  6

  0

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested in points (a) to (d) is as follows:

  (a) None

  (b) (i) Lord Desai, Member of Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, appointed August 1992 for three years, no salary payable.

  (ii) Lord Chorley, British Council Deputy Chairman, appointed April 1991 for three years, no salary payable.

  (iii)Baroness Flather, Governor, Commonwealth Institute, appointed January 1993 for three years, no salary payable.

  (c) Lady Howe JP, Governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, appointed March 1993 for three years, no salary payable.

  (d) This information is not held centrally (and could be provided only at disproportionate cost).

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following meetings are planned:

  12 July—ECOFIN Council

  19–20 July—Foreign Affairs Council

  19–20 July—Agriculture Council

  22 July—Budget Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  ECOFIN Council—12 July

  Multilateral surveillance

  Follow-up to Copenhagen European Council

  Foreign Affairs Council—19–20 July

  Commission opinions on Cyprus and Malta

  142

  Structural Funds

  Relations with European Parliament

  GATT Uruguay Round

  Right to vote in and eligibility for EP elections

  Report on EC-Japan Summit

  Dual Use of Goods

  G7 Summit follow-up

  Ex-Yugoslavia

  TACIS

  Relations with the FSU

  Agriculture Council—19–20 July

  Greek islands (5946/93; 6981/93; 7184/93)

  GATT agriculture (poss) (5813/93; 6612/93)

  SLOM compensation (milk quotas) (5713/93)

  Minced meat quality (poss) (6953/93)

  Budget Council—22 July

  First reading of EC Budget for 1994

  The ECOFIN Council will meet on 12 July to have its usual six-monthly discussion of multilateral surveillance. The Council will also consider follow-up work arising from the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council.

  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 19–20 July to discuss the Commission opinions on Cyprus and Malta, a Dual Use of Goods regulation, the GATT Uruguay round and structural funds. Relations with the European Parliament and voting rights in European Parliament elections will also be discussed. Finally, discussions will take place on the report on the EC-Japan summit, ex-Yugoslavia, relations with the FSU, PECOS and the follow up to the G7 summit.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 19–20 July. Ministers will discuss Greek islands and SLOM compensation. They may also discuss agricultural aspects of the GATT negotiations and minced meat.

  The Budget Council will meet on 22 July to establish the Council's first reading of the EC draft budget for 1994.

  Draft EC Legislation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many items of draft EC legislation, within the categories listed in the House of Commons demand form for European printed papers, are currently being progressed by the European Commission.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Commission's work programme for 1993–94 (SEC(93)58 final) and its legislative programme for 1993 (COM(93)43 final), deposited in the House of Commons on 18 February and 1 March respectively, show the items on which the Commission intends to bring forward proposals.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tools for Self Reliance
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on help given to the Tools for Self Reliance Group for Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Tools for Self Reliance has not yet applied to the ODA for assistance. As I indicated in my
  143
  reply to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 22 March at column 607, it is welcome to apply.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the terms of reference of the review of aid and trade provision and a list of the non-governmental organisations and commercial organisations that were contracted.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The review of aid and trade provision (ATP) covered the scheme's objectives, criteria, efficiency and effectiveness, value for money and management. It also considered the relationship between ATP and export credits, and the international rules.

  All companies which had undertaken projects supported by ATP since the scheme began in 1977 were contacted, along with a number of other companies with outstanding applications and interested trade associations.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure the security of humanitarian supplies to Bosnia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The security of humanitarian aid supplies to Bosnia is kept under continuous review in concert with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who coordinates the international community's response to the humanitarian crisis and the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) who are responsible for providing protection for the aid convoys.

  Malawi
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has towards gradual restoration of development aid to Malawi in the light of constitutional and political developments following the referendum.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 6 July 1993]: The constitutional and political developments since the referendum are encouraging. We are reviewing our policy on aid to Malawi, taking account of these developments and progress on economic reform.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Association Grants
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what definition of affordability for housing association rents he uses in making decisions on the level of housing association grants.

  Sir George Young
  The Government do not define affordability. In setting grant levels each year, I make. a judgment based on various factors. In this I am assisted by a Housing Corporation model which enables us to calculate an affordability ratio representing the average model rent, at certain levels of cost and grant, as a proportion of earned income after tax, excluding housing benefit. The affordability ratio resulting from the grant 144
  rates set has remained unchanged since 1989–90 at around 35 per cent. of a working housing association household's net income before housing benefit.

  The model, however, is only a mechanism to test the impact of changes in grant rates. It is for housing associations to consider what rents are affordable taking account of all local circumstances. Outturn rents show that there is a considerable gap between the rents implied by the model and actual Sellafield rents on the ground.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State? for the Environment what requests he has received from the European Commission on the application by British Nuclear Fuels to construct a mixed oxide nuclear fuels fabrication plant at Sellafield in regard to its requirement to be covered by a full environmental impact assessment under the 1985 EC directive.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Housing Associations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of reduced rates of housing association grant on the ability of households with incomes just above the housing benefit eligibility level to afford housing association rents.

  Sir George Young
  I have received advice on this and other issues, which I am currently considering.

  DSS Hostels
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider introducing planning regulations to limit the spread of bed-and-breakfast accommodation occupied mainly by claimants of income support.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities continue to make progress in reducing their use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. My right hon. Friend is reluctant to use the planning system to impose restrictions on where people choose to live. There are no immediate plans to amend the Use Classes Order 1987, although its operation is kept under continuous review.

  Priority Waste Streams Initiative
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the European project priority waste streams initiative.

  Mr. Yeo
  Six priority waste streams projects have been launched by the European Commission. In a note to members of the various project groups issued on 1 July, the Commission stated that in the light of budgetary constraints, it had been decided to concentrate efforts on the work of the groups dealing with used tyres, chlorinated solvents, end of life vehicles and health care waste. These projects had been planned to finish towards the end of 1993 and early 1994. The outcome of the projects will be evaluated and used in guiding decisions about work on the remaining projects dealing with demolition waste and electronic and electrical waste.

  The United Kingdom has participated fully in this work, which is aimed at devising Community-wide action to reduce the environmental impact of difficult wastes. My

  145
  Department has provided the project leadership for the project on health care waste; the project group had its fourth meeting on 1 and 2 July and is accelerating its programme of work so as to be in a position to produce some results by the end of the year.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy for the management of radioactive waste in Britain with particular reference to spent advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest statement of Government policy for radioactive waste management is set out in chapter 15 of the 1990 White Paper "This Common Inheritance", and updated in chapter 14 of the 1991 first anniversary report and chapter 15 of the 1992 second anniversary report. Spent advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel is not a waste but a resource which may be reprocessed.

  Local Government Commission
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to give effect by order to the recommendations of the Local Government Commission without modification.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission has submitted its final report on only one area, the Isle of Wight, and the Secretary of State is still considering the recommendations. Final reports on other first tranche areas have yet to be submitted by the commission.

  THORP
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what planning conditions or consents relating to any part of the BNFL plant at Sellafield there are which assume or require operation of the proposed thermal oxide reprocessing plant;

  (2) how many planning conditions or consents relating to any part of the BNFL plant at Sellafield will require revision or renewal if the proposed thermal oxide reprocessing plant does not operate.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information about planning permissions issued in respect of BNFL's Sellafield plant is not held centrally.

  Pollution
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times in the last 12 months Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has monitored airborne pollution in Barrow and Furness; and what were the results.

  Mr. Yeo
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has not monitored airborne pollution in Barrow and Furness in the last 12 months. The monitoring of air quality is the responsibility of the local authority.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish equal opportunities policy guidelines to companies bidding to run Government services contracted out to the private sector.
  146
  Mr. Gummer
  EC Council Directive 92/50 lays down criteria for the award of contracts but prohibits the imposition of any non-commercial criteria. Nevertheless, companies invited to tender will be asked to state how equal opportunities policies would be reflected in the performance of their duties. In addition, the terms and conditions of any contract will include a requirement that the contractor shall not discriminate unlawfully within the meaning and scope of the Race Relations Act 1976 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and 1986.

  Redundant Workers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from workers previously employed by local authorities who have been made redundant after their work has been contracted out to private companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend receives a great many representations about local authority compulsory com-petitive tendering matters, including representations from private firms which have won contracts to provide services and taken on new staff, as well as from former council employees.

  He also receives representations from members of the public who are grateful for the improvement in services which CCT has brought about.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider proposed regulations to make exempt from waste management licensing suppliers of automotive paints storing waste flammable solvents who hold a petroleum licence.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 6 July 1993]: My Department issued consultation papers on waste management licensing in August 1992. These included draft regulations prescribing certain exemptions from the need to have a waste management licence. We did not then propose an exemption for waste solvents. Waste flammable solvents are categorised as "special waste" under the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980, and are likely in due course to be categorised as "hazardous" under the EC Directive on Hazardous Waste (91/689/EEC). That directive constrains our freedom to exempt the management of such waste from the need to have a licence. This may only be done where the waste is destined for recovery. We have received representations from the vehicle paint spraying industry about the possibility of exempting the storage of small quantities of waste solvent destined for recovery. We will be considering their case very carefully in the context of finalising the waste management licensing regulations.

  Blackwall River Crossing
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental impact assessments have been obtained in connection with the proposed third river crossing at Blackwall in Tower Hamlets.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 29 June at columns 404–5.
  147
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made for compensation to property owners in the neighbourhood of the Blackwall tunnel, Tower Hamlets for loss of value to their properties blighted by the third river crossing proposals.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 makes provision for compensation in such circumstances. In addition, the London borough of Tower Hamlets has been invited to consider measures to mitigate the effect of the crossing on local residents.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  THORP
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government will prepare and publish a study of the alternative ways in which staff involved in the construction of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant could be re-employed on alternative cleaning up work on the Sellafield site or on work elsewhere.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. British Nuclear Fuels plc has advised me that operating the thermal oxide reprocessing plant is expected to support some 2,000 permanent jobs in West Cumbria. This major employment benefit is in addition to the employment arising from the decommissioning programme at Sellafield which is already under way and is appropriate to the requirements of the site.

  Isobutyl Nitrate
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ban the sale of isobutyl nitrate poppers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government continue to keep this matter under review in order to access whether measures to control the misuse of isobutyl nitrate poppers might be appropriate in the future.

  EC Energy Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the Energy Council in Luxembourg on 25 June.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 6 July,Official Report, columns 106–7.

  Steel Imports
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the import quota for steel from the Commonwealth of Independent States for the European Community for 1993; what proportion of this quota has been allocated to the United Kingdom; and what is the expected United Kingdom quota for 1993.

  Mr. Needham
  The European Community quota of 321,000 tonnes for steel imports in 1993 from the former Soviet Union (excluding the Baltic states) covers only heavy plate, coils, other flat-rolled products, beams and wire rods. All other products are liberalised. The quota is 148
  administered in three tranches, the distribution within each of which depends on the number of licence applications made and on past trade patterns. United Kingdom importers' share in total of the first and second tranches is 15,541 tonnes. It is not yet possible to determine what the total quantities available to United Kingdom importers for the year as a whole will be.

  Research and Development
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those companies based in north Staffordshire which have received Government help with investment in research and development.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government offer assistance for research and development in a variety of forms from more than one Department. The details requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the citizens advice bureaux on the funding requirements of their advice service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The funding of individual citizens advice bureaux is a matter for local authorities. The Department is responsible for the funding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland, which provide support services to local bureaux. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms met representatives of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux twice in the past year, on 12 October 1992, when funding for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux was one of several issues discussed, and on 24 March 1993 when the issue of funding was not raised.

  Computer Imports
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the percentage of the home market of electronic computers supplied by imports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom production of electronic computers and parts in 1991 was £6·4 billion compared with domestic sales of £7·5 billion. Exports were £5·8 billion which accounted for 90 per cent. of United Kingdom manufacturers' sales. Imports were £6·.8 billion, of which 37 per cent. was attributed to parts. This gives an apparent import penetration of 91 per cent. It is likely that many of the imported computers were subsequently re-exported, but separate figures for re-exports are not available.

  High-technology Industries
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives he plans for the improvement of high-technology British industries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Our policies contribute to high technology as well as other industries. In addition, as outlined in the recent Science and Technology White Paper, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's statement of 26 May,Official Report,

  149
  columns 583–85, the Government are mounting a technology foresight programme, with the Office of Science and Technology in the lead and substantial assistance from DTI. This will establish priorities among generic technologies and encourage industrialists and academics to develop clear strategies for the contribution of emerging science to high technology industry. DTI will facilitate access to overseas technology and provide technology and innovation consultancy through the diagnostic and brokerage services planned to succeed the consultancy initiative.

  Insurance Companies
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has about United Kingdom life insurance companies proposing to transfer business to Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The International Financial Services Centre, established in Dublin under EC state aid rules, offers certain tax incentives for financial services business conducted with non-residents. I am aware that one United Kingdom assurance company has set up business additionally in the centre. However, the benefits offered by the centre, in so far as the life assurance industry is concerned, affect only a narrow range of products, and

  Name

  Post

  Salary

  Duration

  Party

  John Corrie

  Chairman of the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland

  £6,310

  6 years

  Conservative

  Robin Hodgson

  Member of the West Midlands Industrial Development Board

  Unpaid

  5 years

  Conservative

  Charles Longbottom

  Non-Executive Director of British Shipbuilders

  £5,000

  5 years

  Conservative

  Sir Julian Ridsdale

  Member of the Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  Unpaid

  2 years

  Conservative

  Regulations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the terms of reference for his Department's inquiry into unnecessary regulations.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The seven deregulation task forces have the following terms of reference.

  To advise Ministers on priorities for the repeal or simplification of existing regulations and enforcement methods so as to minimise the costs on business; to advise Ministers on the best way of developing and maintaining consultation on the introduction and enforcement of new regulations including those arising from EC measures; bearing in mind the consideration of public health, safety and security which underlie the regulatory system.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to ensure that the Government's 1993 nuclear review is wide-ranging and comprehensive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The scope, timing and format of the review of the future prospects for nuclear power are under consideration within Government. A further announce-ment will be made in due course.
  150
  I have received no indication that United Kingdom life assurance companies generally are proposing to transfer business there.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what special provisions apply to the proceeds accruing to National Power or PowerGen arising from the closure of any power station subsequent to privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  All the privatised electricity companies are subject to provisions which, above certain thresholds, entitle the Government to half the gain resulting from property disposals. No payment is due from the disposal of a specialised property such as a power station as a going concern, provided that it continues in operational use until 31 March 2000.

  Quangos (Appointments)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which the former hon. Member represented.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Logic Control Systems Ltd
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to bring disqualification proceedings in the case of the move of Logic Control Systems Ltd of Clowne, Derbyshire into liquidation or to make an application under section 7(2) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for leave to extend the period for taking such disqualification proceedings.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  On present information, it is the Secretary of State's intention to commence disqualification proceedings against the principal director of Logic Control Systems Limited (In Liquidation) by 19 July 1993.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy on the proposal for a second RECHAR; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 30 June 1993] I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on 29 June, Official Report, column 439.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions his Department has(a) rejected and (b) required amendment of corporate plans produced by BNFL.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: My Department discusses the corporate plans produced by British Nuclear Fuels plc with the company and comments on them as appropriate.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library the report prepared by PA Consultants on the future of the Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: Yes. I have today placed copies of the report in the Library of the House.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines his Department has introduced concerning visits by hon. Members to his Department's executive agencies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 June 1993]: Each case is assessed in the light of the particular circumstances at the time. Where appropriate, Ministers should act as host to hon. Members in order to assist on matters of Government policy.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Convergence Criteria
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to set policy in the medium term by reference to the convergence criteria of the treaty of Maastricht.

  Mr. Nelson
  There is a long-established practice in the United Kingdom of setting economic policy in a medium term framework. The Government's economic strategy, as set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", is based on the principles of low inflation, stable monetary conditions and sound public finances. The convergence criteria are designed to achieve the same objectives.

  Decommissioning Levy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution has been made to date to the national fund by the former Central Electricity Generating Board, Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear from their decommissioning levy; and what benefits accrue from this investment to the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Mr. Nelson
  In England and Wales, under orders made by the President of the Board of Trade, the regional electricity companies—RECs—are obliged to contract for a certain amount of non-fossil fuel generating capacity. Most of this is nuclear capacity owned and operated by Nuclear Electric. The additional costs to the regional 152
  electricity companies of meeting this obligation are met by a fossil fuel levy on consumers, set in 1993–94 at 10 per cent.

  Revenue to Nuclear Electric from selling electricity in the market and from the premium paid by the RECs and financed by the levy reduces the company's net external financing requirement. The impact of the arrangements to support non-fossil fuel generation is therefore to reduce the overall public sector borrowing requirement, although the precise impact cannot sensibly be calculated as it depends on the assumptions made about how the additional costs of non-fossil fuel generation would have otherwise been met.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the control total for public expenditure in 1994–95 of restraining public sector pay to an increase of(a) 0 per cent., (b) 2 per cent., (c) 3 per cent., (d) 4 per cent. and (e) the latest estimate of the rate of inflation which will be used for the annual uprating of pensions and benefits.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. The Cabinet agreed on 17 June that the new control total in 1994–95 would be set by sticking to existing ceilings. Within these ceilings, a responsible approach to public sector pay will ensure the best outcome in terms of service delivery.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing(a) the proportion that public spending represented of the gross domestic product and (b) the level of unemployment in each year since 1976.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest figures for general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, as a percentage of money GDP are shown in table 2B.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". The Central Statistical Office will be publishing revised figures for general Government expenditure in the July edition of "Financial Statistics".

  Figures for the level of unemployment are shown in "Economic Trends Annual Supplement" table 21 and "Economic Trends" table 20.

  Financial Advisers Commissions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make his decision on the Office of Fair Trading report on disclosures of commissions for independent and tied financial advisers.

  Mr. Nelson
  As soon as is compatible with proper consideration of the issues and representations received during the consultation period.

  Employment Changes
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which commercial sectors the Inland Revenue has identified the greatest movement(a) from schedule D to schedule E and (b) from schedule E to schedule D.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that this information is not available. But looking at the total work force, the proportion that are self-employed and paying tax under schedule D has risen from 7 per cent. in 1978–79 to 10 per cent. in 1992–93.

  Tax Inspectors
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many trained Inland Revenue tax inspectors were working for the Inland Revenue in each year since 1979; and how many were working in the areas of(a) capital gains tax, (b) schedule D tax, (c) corporation tax, (d) PAYE and (e) national insurance contributions in each year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Excluding inspectors employed on central administration and in specialist offices, the table sets out the total numbers of Inland Revenue staff in the Department's inspector grades working within its network of local offices for each year since 1978–79 and how many were working in the areas of(a) capital gains tax, (b) schedule D tax, (c) corporation tax, and (d) schedule E tax in each year. Under (d) figures have been provided for schedule E tax rather than PAYE, as PAYE is simply a mechanism for collecting schedule E tax. Inspector resource usage on national insurance contribution work is incidental to mainstream tax work. It is not separately recorded.

  Year

  Total

  Capital gains

  Schedule D tax

  Corporation tax

  Schedule E tax

  1978–79

  5,651

  343

  2,858

  1,397

  1,054

  1979–80

  5,654

  343

  2,860

  1,397

  1,054

  1980–81

  5,553

  337

  2,808

  1,372

  1,035

  1981–82

  5,421

  329

  2,742

  1,340

  1,011

  1982–83

  5,381

  326

  2,721

  1,330

  1,003

  1983–84

  5,497

  333

  2,780

  1,358

  1,025

  1984–85

  5,377

  326

  2,719

  1,329

  1,003

  1985–86

  5,440

  330

  2,751

  1,344

  1,014

  1986–87

  5,587

  339

  2,826

  1,381

  1,042

  1987–88

  5,788

  351

  2,927

  1,430

  1,079

  1988–89

  6,144

  356

  3,154

  1,511

  1,123

  Grade 3

  Grade 5

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  Total Staff (all grades)

  1 April 1989

  Railways 1

  1

  3

  0

  9

  40

  Railways 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 April 1990

  Railways 1

  1

  4

  2

  10

  47

  Railways 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 April 1991

  Railways 1

  1

  4

  1

  12

  54

  Railways 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 April 1992

  Railways 1

  1

  5

  1

  13

  54

  Railways 2

  1

  3

  0

  4

  43

  1 April 1993

  Railways 1

  1

  4

  1

  11

  57

  Railways 2

  1

  5

  0

  10

  47

  Staff at grade 1, the permanent secretary, and grade 2, deputy secretary, have wider responsibilities which go beyond the Railways Directorate.

  A13
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what toxic waste, asbestos or related material has been excavated over the past two months during the course of construction and related works on the 154

  Year

  Total

  Capital gains

  Schedule D tax

  Corpora lion tax

  Schedule E tax

  1989–90

  6,365

  370

  3,284

  1,563

  1,148

  1990–91

  6,624

  382

  3,429

  1,652

  1,161

  1991–92

  6,737

  374

  3,434

  1,725

  1,205

  1992–93

  6,808

  372

  3,546

  1,721

  1,170

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the savings would be of taxing child benefit at the higher rate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  If child benefit were added to the father's —or lone mother's—taxable income and the part of it which came above the basic rate limit was taxed at 40 per cent., the revenue yield at 1993–94 levels would be about £250 million. The equivalent yield if it were added to the mother's—or lone father's—taxable income would be about £30 million.

TRANSPORT

  Railways Directorate
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff have been employed in the railways directorate (railways 1 and railways 2)(a) in grades 1 to 7 and (b) in total.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of staff employed in the Railways Directorate at 1 April this year, and in the four preceding years, in grades 3 to 7, as well as the total number of staff, is set out in the following table.

  Wennington-Mar Dyke section of the part of the new A13 road stretching one mile either side of the boundary of the borough of Thurrock with the London borough of Havering.

  Mr. Norris
  On the Heathway-Wennington section, laboratory analysis continues of the samples collected for the chemical ground investigation. The exact content of the samples will not be certain until the results are available and these will be placed in the Library.
  155
  On the Wennington-Mar Dyke section, no toxic waste or asbestos was excavated. All other arisings were deposited at suitably licensed landfill sites in accordance with the latest regulations.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who was responsible for surveying and supervising the extraction of materials excavated over the past two months on that section of the Wennington-Mar Dyke section of the new A13 road stretching one mile either side of the boundary of the borough of Thurrock with the London borough of Havering.

  Mr. Norris
  On the Heathway-Wennington section, only samples were removed for analysis from pits and boreholes and all other materials were replaced. On the Wennington-Mar Dyke section, the work was supervised by the Department's consultants W. S. Atkins.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what quantity of materials extracted as part of the construction of the Wennington-Mar Dyke section of the new A13 road stretching one mile either side of the boundary of the borough of Thurrock with the London borough of Havering has been deposited in(a) Aveley No. 2 pit and (b) Aveley No. 3 pit; and what was the nature of those materials.

  Mr. Norris
  On the Heathway-Wennington section, only samples have been removed for analysis and no material deposited elsewhere.

  On the Wennington-Mar Dyke section, approximately 1,500 cu m of material was excavated for the advance works contract. Less than 500 cu m was landfill refuse material which was deposited in Aveley No. 2 pit.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirements exist for a chemist, or other comparable analyst, to witness the excavation of materials of the nature of those moved as part of the construction of the Wennington-Mardyke section of the new A13 road stretching one mile either side of the boundary of the borough of Thurrock with the London borough of Havering; and which such officials and for what occasion and periods were present in the case of that road section.

  Mr. Norris
  On the Heathway-Wennington section of the proposed A13, an extensive chemical ground survey was carried out. A copy of the results will be placed in the Library of the House when they are available. Trial pits and boreholes were dug along the line of the proposed new road east of the London to Tilbury railway and across the marshes. Appropriately qualified personnel, including chemists, supervised the field work.

  On the Wennington-Mardyke section, the Department would consider, if appropriate, the appointment of a chemist or other analyst to witness the excavation of landfill materials on the road works contract. A chemist was not present during the recently completed advance works contract. The work involved some compaction of the landfill for part of a length of future temporary road diversion.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the results of the geological and other surveys showing the composition of the soil and ground along the Wennington-Mardyke section of the new Al3 road; and what details are held by his Department that relate to the previous dumping of waste along this section.
  156
  Mr. Norris
  The results of the geological and other surveys in respect of the Wennington Mardyke section of the proposed A13 run to 23 volumes. It would not be practicable to place these in the Library. They may be viewed on request and by arrangement by writing to the Department's consultants, W. S. Atkins at Woodcote Grove, Ashley road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW, telephone 0372 726140.

  The infill of the mineral extraction pits was uncontrolled and was carried out during the 1950s and 1960s. W. S. Atkins carried out a desk survey of the mineral workings in 1987 which included information provided by Essex county council, Thurrock borough council and London borough of Havering.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions he has made in the railway privatisation proposals to ensure a high and sustained level of investment is maintained in infrastructure enhance-ments or renewal and the provision of new rolling stock and traction.

  Mr. Freeman
  From April 1994 Railtrack will have the lead responsibility for investment in track and related infrastructure and will make charges to operators allowing it to recoup investment expenditure and earn a rate of return on it. The Government will provide indirect support through subsidy for franchised passenger services, and direct support for investment in schemes not earning an adequate financial return but which provide a satisfactory cost-benefit return when wider benefits are taken into account.

  In last year's autumn statement the Government gave approval to British Rail to lease £150 million worth of new rolling stock. This and the establishment of three publicly owned rolling stock companies will encourage the development of a leasing market. The Government's intention is that provision of rolling stock should in future pass increasingly to the private sector and so be outside the constraints of public expenditure.

  Clause 46 of the Railways Bill is also designed to encourage investment in railway assets with an economic life longer than a franchise.

  Inter-rail
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had concerning the future of Inter-rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Discussions have taken place between British Rail and my advisers. As to future arrangements, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Member for Cunninghame, North on 25 June,Official Report, column 282.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he will take to minimise the damage to Eltham and to Oxleas Wood of the road to the proposed east London river crossing.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government remain fully committed to meeting the need for a new road link across the Thames in east London as a key element in the strategy
  157
  to regenerate the east Thames corridor. However, following a reappraisal we have been undertaking, the Transport Minister for London and I have decided that the current scheme, designed and chosen some time ago, fails to meet the high environmental standards we now apply to new road schemes.

  We have therefore decided not to proceed with current plans. We shall examine alternative solutions which meet the same strategic objectives, but which will have less impact on the local environment. We will bring forward new proposals for the scheme and in so doing will explore opportunities for greater involvement by the private sctor and a design competition for the bridge over the Thames, as suggested by the Royal Fine Arts Commission.

  This decision is quite independent of the infraction proceedings instigated by the European Commission. The Government remain clear that the environmental impact assessment directive should not apply to projects which were in the pipeline when it came into force, and it will continue to contest the proceedings brought by the Commission.

  Motorways
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made for a system of permits for the use of motorways; and when he plans to publish his conclusions.

  Mr. Key
  The conclusions of the study that the Government have so far made of the use of permits for charging for motorways are included in the Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways', Cm 2200, published on 26 May. Copies are available in the Library.

  Network SouthEast
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what has been the percentage increase in fares in cash terms in Network SouthEast over the whole period since May 1979; and what was the percentage increase in the retail prices index over the same period;

  (2) what has been the percentage increase in fares in Network SouthEast in real terms since May 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The overall cash increase in Network SouthEast fares between 1979 and 1992–93 was 234 per cent. The retail prices index increased by 146 per cent. over the same period, giving an overall fare increase in real terms of 36 per cent.

  School Buses
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to lower the age limit at which three children may share a double bus seat.

  Mr. Key
  The Department is currently considering, with the Department of Education, various aspects of school transport, including the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations—the three-for-two concession. It would not be right to anticipate the outcome of this work.

  Residential Property
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham are owned by his Department; and 158
  if he will publish a list of such residential properties which are currently empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant and the intended future use.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department owns 22 residential properties transferred from the London residuary body in 1987. These were acquired for trunk road improvements and all are currently let. In addition five residential properties were transferred to the Department from the National Bus Company on its dissolution in 1991. These are currently vacant, three are to be demolished to enable a housing development to take place and two are required for the trunk road improvements. Consideration is being given to the possibility of letting them in the meantime. It is not my Department's practice to publish the addresses of vacant properties.

  The Department also owns 14 commercial properties, with integral living accommodation, all acquired for road schemes. Nine of these are let on a commercial basis and attempts are being made to find suitable commercial tenants for the other five.

  Repeater Signs
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the need to approve the use of repeater signs within 30 mph speed limit areas.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: There have been a number of such requests. I am currently considering the wider problem of vehicle speeds in villages.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Forged Letter
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral statement of 30 June,Official Report, column 975, if he will make a further statement on the source of the forged letter in the name of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale; what inquiries were made as to the origins of the notepaper used; and what disciplinary action was taken against the offender.

  The Attorney-General
  The letter to which the right hon. Member refers was produced by an officer of the City of London police engaged on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International inquiry. It was a misguided April fools joke intended to be confined to those employed on the inquiry and not designed in any way to influence any aspect of the investigation.

  Disciplinary procedures relating to police officers are the responsibility of the chief officer of the force concerned. In October 1992 I suggested to the right hon. Member that if he wished to pursue the disciplinary aspect he should contact the Commissioner of the City of London police.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charters make specific reference to the needs of disabled people.
  159
  Mr. Davis
  I should like to correct a minor error to the answer given to this question on Monday 8 March 1993 at column 657 by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), the then Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science. On that date the number of charters that made specific reference to the needs of people with disabilities was 24, not 25. I apologise for this error.

  Today, 27 out of 32 published charters make a reference to people with disabilities.

WALES

  Minority Languages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further deliberations have taken place on the subject of the United Kingdom ratifying the European charter on minority languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Government Departments with an interest in the European charter for regional or minority languages have been considering its implications for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom decision on ratification must take into account the situation of each of the indigenous minority languages spoken within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to a ratification of the European charter on minority languages with a derogation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Article 21 of the European charter for regional or minority languages states that reservations to the charter may be made only to one or more of paragraphs 2 to 5 of article 7. The United Kingdom Government will announce their response to the charter in due course.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the total salaries paid in 1993–94 to(a) chief executives, (b) executive members and (c) non-executive members of hospital trust boards in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on salaries paid to chief executives and executive members of NHS trust boards is not held centrally but will be included in the accounts and annual report which each trust is required to make publicly available.

  Trust chairmen receive remuneration of between £15,125 and £19,285 dependent upon the level of income of the trust. Each non-executive member receives remunera-tion of £5,000 per annum. In addition, travel and other expenses may be payable.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to advertise all NHS hospital trust(a) chief executive posts, (b) chairs and (c) non-executive posts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am advertising for nominations for inclusion in the register the Welsh Office holds of candidates suitable for public appointment. This will enable anyone interested in undertaking work of public service, including chairmanship or non-executive membership of an NHS trust, to put their name forward for consideration. The post of chief executive must be advertised except when a trust is first established.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the mechanisms that he has put in place or proposes for the patients of general practitioner fund holders to have an involvement in decisions about their doctors' health care purchasing priorities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is generally recognised that GPs as the gatekeepers of the NHS are uniquely placed to improve patients' choice of good quality services. It would be inappropriate for me to interfere with this relationship.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the current level of unemployment among manufacturing workers in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the current level of unemployment among workers in the service industries in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, labour force surveys conducted between December 1992 and February 1993 reported that 20 per cent. of the 138,000 unemployed had a previous job in the manufacturing sector and 41 per cent. in the service sector. These percentages are likely to be underestimates, because 14 per cent. of unemployed respondents did not give a previous industry.

  These figures are based on the International Labour Organisation definition of unemployment. Labour force survey estimates, being derived from a sample of the population, are subject to sampling variability.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of TEC leavers went on to secure full employment from each of the TECs in Wales last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest information available for leavers securing full-time employment is for the period September 1991 to August 1992 and is set out in the table. I encourage the training and enterprise councils to continue to improve performance in training for young people and the unemployed.

  Percentage of leavers1 going into full-time employment2

  TEC

  Youth training3

  Employment training

  Mid Glamorgan

  43

  34

  South Glamorgan

  38

  26

  Gwent

  37

  32

  Powys

  4n/a

  38

  North East Wales

  66

  22

  North West Wales

  4n/a

  4n/a

  West Wales

  32

  32

  Wales

  40

  34

  Source: YT and ET national follow-up surveys.

  Notes:

  1 All leavers from September 1991 to August 1992—the latest available 12 months.

  2 Full-time work including self employment.

  3 Includes youth credits.

  4 n/a: Too few responses to give a reliable figure.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many vacancies there were for jobs in service sector industries in each of the last 12 months in each county in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) how many vacancies there were for jobs in manufacturing sector industries in each of the last 12 months in each county in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information, for those months for which data are available, can be accessed on-line by the staff of the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the working of the common fisheries policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Article 38 of the treaty of Rome provides for a common fisheries policy (CFP). The CFP is principally concerned with managing and sustaining a limited resource in the common interest of all member states.

  The United Kingdom benefits from the CFP. The 1983 settlement, which established it, took good account of United Kingdom interests. We secured 37 per cent. of the quotas for the seven main species caught in the North European waters, a figure higher than our historical level of catches, and we reduced the access rights of other member states on our coastal waters by nearly three quarters.

  The CFP is subject to continuing assessment by the EC Fisheries Council and in order to fulfil its treaty of Rome requirements it continues to evolve and change when circumstances make this desirable. Improvements in the CFP, notably involving strategies for conservation, were introduced in the mid-term review of the CFP, which was brought to a successful conclusion at the end of 1992 under the United Kingdom Presidency. In last month's Council of Fisheries Ministers, agreement was reached on a new control regulation which will provide for better and more effective enforcement. This regulation is due to take effect on 1 January 1994 and will significantly strengthen the Commission's powers to ensure that Community rules are properly implemented in all member states.

  To be effective the CFP must include measures to prevent over-exploitation. Without such measures fish stocks would decline, which would be in no-one's long-term interest. Inevitably controls on fishing are unwelcome to fishermen. I understand that and will continue to defend United Kingdom interests in negotiations on the CFP while recognising the need for an effective CFP which is equitably applied and enforced in all Member States. I do not support calls for the United Kingdom to take unilateral action or withdraw from the CFP.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the market-testing programme has cost her Department since November 1992.
  162
  Mr. Jack
  Over the period November 1992 to date the Department's market testing programme is estimated to have cost some £546,000 including external consultancy support.

  Live animals (Transport)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to ensure the transport of live animals from the United Kingdom to the EC is conducted in a humane fashion; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 places controls on the transport of animals to safeguard their welfare during all journeys, including those to destinations in other EC member states.

  Horses and Cattle (Diseases)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what would be the estimated cost of reimbursing owners of horses and cattle testing sero-positive to equine viral arteritis and foot and mouth disease;

  (2) whether she will be authorising compensation to be paid to the injured parties for all direct and consequential losses arising from her Department's import checking procedures in connection with each incident of equine viral arteritis;

  (3) whether she will authorise compensation to be paid for direct and consequential losses arising from the importation of cattle testing sero-positive to foot and mouth disease.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The Ministry has no legal obligation nor statutory authority to pay any form of compensation in these circumstances, which is a commercial matter between the owners, importers and exporters.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many abattoirs operating in England and Wales conform fully to EC standards;

  (2) how many authorised abattoirs operating in England and Wales currently fail to conform to EC standards; and by what date full conformity with these standards will be required.

  Mr. Soames
  In England and Wales 65 abattoirs fully comply with the EC standards, and 352 abattoirs are operating under temporary derogations from some of the EC structural standards. All premises comply in full with the hygiene standards. Temporary derogations may run for a three-year period up to 31 December 1995, but many premises are scheduled to complete upgrading work well before this date.

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fish farms use waste water generated by power stations.

  Mr. Jack
  There are currently two fish farms using water warmed by waste heat from power stations on the register of fish farm businesses held by Fisheries Departments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Council Tax
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will change the current practice of taking each £250 of savings in excess of £3,000 to represent £1 of income per week when calculating council tax rebates for pensioners.

  Mr. Burt
  The rules on the treatment of capital are kept under review, but we have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of people currently claiming invalidity benefit are women; and what percentage of these women head single-parent households.

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

  At 30 March 1991, the latest date for which information is available, 25 per cent. of invalidity benefit claimants were women1.

  There is no information available on what percentage of women claimants head single-parent households.
  1 Figure based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were found to be fraudulently claiming invalidity benefit in each year since 1980; and if he will give the figure so far for 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of people claiming(a) sickness and (b) invalidity benefit for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Scott
  Available information about the numbers claiming sickness and invalidity benefits is in the table.

  Date

  Sickness benefit claimants2

  Invalidity benefit claimants

  29 May 1982

  469,000

  684,000

  2 April 1983

  408,000

  737,000

  31 March 1984

  3247,000

  797,000

  30 March 1985

  225,000

  849,000

  5 April 1986

  237,000

  899,000

  4 April 1987

  3187,000

  968,000

  2 April 1988

  228,000

  1,047,000

  1 April 1989

  266,000

  1,126,000

  31 March 1990

  309,000

  1,209,000

  30 March 1991

  372,000

  1,306,000

  1991–924

  120,000

  1,365,000

  1992–934

  135,000

  1,490,000

  Notes:

  1 Figures based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants, at a point in time, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 Figures include claimants who are not receiving sickness benefit but receive national insurance credits.

  3 Statutory sick pay introduced from 6 April 1983 for a maximum eight weeks sickness absence in a tax year. From 6 April 1986 statutory sick pay was payable for up to 28 weeks in any one period of incapacity for work.

  164
  4 Information is not yet available for later than March 1991. For 1991–92 and 1992–93 figures come from the estimates appearing in the departmental report 1993.

  Quangos (Appointments)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the former Members of the House who have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which the former hon. Member represented.

  Mr. Hague
  None to those bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1992".

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, and salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for a large number of public appointments. The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the total weekly income including benefits of(a) a single unemployed person aged 21 years and paying £40 a week in rent and (b) a student of the same age on full grant and loan paying the same rent.

  Mr. Burt
  On the assumption that insufficient contributions had been paid to give title to unemployment benefit, a lone, unemployed 21-year-old with a rent liability of £40 per week would normally be entitled to income support of £34·80 per week and would, through housing benefit, receive up to 100 per cent. of his rent, less any ineligible items. This equates to about £74·80 per week.

  A 21-year-old student following a full-time course of higher education, but otherwise in the same circumstances, would not normally be eligible for income support or housing benefit but would receive support through the educational maintenance system. During the period of study the standard maintenance grant outside London, for the coming academic year, equates to £59·60 per week over 38 weeks, with income available from the full-year student loan of £15·38 per week. This equates to about £74·98 per week.

  In addition, if a student in higher education faces particular financial difficulties he may be able to receive assistance from the access funds. The access funds are administered on a discretionary basis by the educational establishments.

  It is not possible to estimate students' income during the long vacation because some students will find work during that period.

  Maxwell Pension Funds
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest position in relation to the recovery of Maxwell pension funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The liquidators of Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd., which managed Maxwell pension scheme funds, have located and secured assets presently worth some £300 million. The Maxwell pension scheme trustees are now cautiously optimistic about meeting their pension liabilities in full in the long term. Much now depends on claims against third parties. Sir John Cuckney and the Maxwell pensions unit are encouraging all concerned to an early resolution of disputes. They are available to facilitate this process with the consent of the parties concerned.

  Mais Lecture
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to publish the analysis and projection of social security provision to which he referred in his Mais lecture on 23 June.

  Mr. Lilley
  I will publish a document entitled "The Growth of Social Security" on Thursday 8 July. It contains the analysis of the growth of social security provision and projections up to the end of the century prepared in the course of the Government's long-term review of social security. It will be sent to all right hon. and hon. Members. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost would be of disregarding child benefit in the calculation for income support and family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that the cost of disregarding child benefit in income support would be £1,490 million. Child benefit is already disregarded in family credit. Disregarding child benefit in all the income-related benefits would cost around £1,680 million.

SCOTLAND

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish director of British Rail (ScotRail) to discuss the job implications for Scotland of future decisions on the west coast main line.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Regular contact is maintained with British Rail by Scottish Office Ministers and officials. Such contacts cover a wide range of topics relating to rail services in Scotland.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the British Rail main line coast services; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations about rail 166
  services on the west coast main line. Responsibility for railway matters however lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The detailed operation of the railways, including the precise level of services to be offered on individual lines, is a matter for British Rail.

  Stobhill Hospital
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acute bed places were available in Stobhill hospital during the months of November 1992, December 1992 and January 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  For each month during the period November 1992 and January 1993 there were between 191 and 193 acute beds available at Stobhill hospital.

  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to give directions to the Crown estate commissioners as to the discharge of their functions in relation to fish farming in Scotland under section 1(4) of the Crown Estate Act 1961; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to give directions to the Crown Estate Commissioners as to the discharge of their functions in relation to fish farming in Scotland. These responsibilities have been reviewed most recently by the Agriculture Select Committee. Following that report, the Scottish Office issued draft guidance on the location of marine fish farms, which was widely welcomed.

  Rented Housing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to encourage the provision of low cost rented housing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am already encouraging considerable investment in low cost rented housing through the Government's funding of Scottish Homes. Over 70 per cent. of its development programme, amounting to some £230 million, will be spent in the current financial year on the provision of rented accommodation through the housing association and co-operative movement. This investment will result in over 5,000 new house starts in 1993–94.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the underlying trends in the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  As I have indicated to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), my right hon. Friend and I frequently meet the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of issues relevant to the Scottish economy. I am pleased to note that independent forecasters continue to predict that the present recovery in Scottish output will be sustained. I am also delighted that unemployment has fallen over the past four months. We continue to have an unemployment rate significantly below the United Kingdom average.

  Economy, Lanarkshire
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the Lanarkshire economy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations regarding the Lanarkshire economy.

  Health and Education Spending
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the spending per head on(a) health and (b) education in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The latest available figures for identifiable general government expenditure are for 1991–92. They show spending in Scotland of £787 per head on health and personal social services and £646 per head on education.

  Timex
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet representatives of Timex Electronics Corporation to discuss the grants made to its plant in Dundee.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has met senior Timex management twice in recent weeks.

  Following the announcement of the Dundee factory's closure the company and the Scottish Office Industry Department have discussed grant assistance made to the plant.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to deliver high quality, low cost services.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government are committed to the provision of high quality, low cost local services and have taken a number of steps to achieve this. These include:—our plans to reform the structure of local government:
  —the introduction of the citizens charter, the principles of which my right hon. Friend hopes will be adopted by all authorities;
  —the requirement that authorities subject certain services to competitive tendering;
  —support for action by the Accounts Commission to improve value for money in Scottish local government;
  —the provisions in the Local Government Act 1992 requiring local authorities to publish their standards of performance in delivering services in the light of a direction issued by the Accounts Commission.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the imposition of business rates on timeshare dwellings.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 31 March 1993 at col.153.

  In the period from 27 March, we have received representations concerning the regulations from a further 49 Members of Parliament and 228 other individuals.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's review of the future of forestry policy in the United Kingdom.
  168
  Sir Hector Monro
  The review which my right hon. Friend announced on 30 March 1993 is progressing well, although it is still at an early stage in its task. As part of that review the Forestry Commission has issued a consultation paper seeking views on the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the Government's forestry review.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding his review of the options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Over 500 letters have been received offering comment on the work of the review which my right hon. Friend established on 30 March. Comment has come from all quarters, including hon. Members, organisations with interests in forestry, timber production, the environment and the recreational uses of forests.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider extending the review group on the Forestry Commission to include a representative from a conservationist group; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Review group already includes representatives from the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office which are the Government Departments with responsibil-ity for nature conservation. In addition, the chairman and secretariat are provided by the Scottish Office Environment Department.

  The review group is working to a remit which requires it to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies. Concern for nature conservation is an integral component of existing forestry policy.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what groups have been called on by the forestry review group to give external advice and assistance; and if he will put copies of their submissions in the Library.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: The Forestry Commission has asked Canopy Consultants to carry out an environmental survey of a sample of private woodlands which have received grant aid during the last 15 years. This survey will inform the review of the effectiveness of current incentives for forestry investment which is part of the work of the forestry review group. No other groups have been asked for external advice or assistance.

  There are no plans to publish the Canopy Consultants report in advance of the review group making its report to Ministers.

  Local Government
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the new single-tier local authorities in Scotland to be up and running.

  Mr. Stewart
  Subject to the necessary legislation being in place, it is intended that elections to the new authorities
  169
  should be held in spring 1995, with the new councils assuming responsibility from existing authorities on 1 April 1996.

  Status Definitions
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the European Community to discuss objective 1 and objective 5b status definitions of areas in Scotland; and if he will make a statement on progress.

  Mr. Stewart
  Negotiations on revised regulations for the EC structural funds made excellent progress on 3 July, thanks to the considerable efforts of United Kingdom negotiators and in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  I am very pleased that, subject to final agreement in the Council later this month, the whole of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area will now be granted objective 1 status. This demonstrates the advantage for Scotland of relying on the considerable weight which the United Kingdom as a whole can bring to bear in EC negotiations.

  The process of designating objective 5b areas in Scotland will begin as soon as the regulations have been adopted. It is as yet too early to say what areas might qualify.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from west coast fishermen about fishing quotas and days at sea.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I receive regular representations from west coast fishermen and their representative organisations on these and other issues.

  Engineering Industry
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on employment, export and manufacturing order figures for the engineering sector in Scotland for the most recent quarter for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The most recent census of employment, carried out in September 1991, identified a total of 104,900 employees in the engineering sector in Scotland. Official figures on exports and manufacturing orders are not disaggregated on a regional or national basis.

  There are encouraging signs of an increase in confidence in the Scottish engineering sector, and many companies have reported an increase in total orders as well as export sales.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the fluoridation of public water supplies.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend regrets that Strathclyde Regional Council has decided not to proceed with fluoridation, despite the potential benefits to dental health and the strong support for fluoridation expressed by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden among 170
  others. The Department stands ready to consider providing assistance to the capital costs involved when and as decisions to fluoridate water supplies are taken locally.

  Renewables Order
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 113, when he now expects to publish the Scottish renewables order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 21 April 1993 at column. 113.

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the criteria used by the Lord Advocate in deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not possible to list the criteria for deciding whether the public interest requires a prosecution in a particular case. The prosecutor considers whether there is sufficient reliable evidence and whether, having regard to all the relevant factors, the circumstances make a prosecution appropriate.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals have been granted trust status.

  Mr. Stewart
  Seventeen NHS trusts are now operational in Scotland.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all appointments made as chairmen, members, chairmen designate and members designate of all NHS trusts and trusts designate as at 30 June.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 22 June 1993 at columns 145–56. No further appointments were made up to 30 June 1993.

  Licensing Hours
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to introduce legislation to change the licensing hours in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Liquor licensing hours in Scotland were amended by Part III of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 following a consultative review of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976; no further changes are proposed at present.

  River Clyde
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about funding for the dredging of the River Clyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It remains the Government's policy that port authorities, including Clyde Port Ltd, should manage their businesses on a commercial basis and that the costs of dredging should be met by charges to the users of ports, or by other parties who benefit from the dredging.

  Episiotomies
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the frequency of episiotomies in maternity units in all health board areas since 1983.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Wheelchairs (Children)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list per health board and trust board area the average waiting time for physically handicapped children to be(a) measured for and (b) supplied with wheelchairs adapted to their needs.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available.

  The five artificial limb and appliance centres responsible for the supply and maintenance of wheelchairs in Scotland have been asked by my noble Friend the Minister of State to collect this information in future in respect of all new wheelchair patients.

  Speech Therapists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list per health board and trust board area the number of full-time(a) occupational and (b) speech therapists employed in paediatric services.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by regional council areas the length of time taken by education departments to open a record of need for children with(a) physical and(b) special learning needs; and what is the average time for completion of such records.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally. However, a research report (Children with Special Educational Needs: Thomson et al: August 1989) showed that in Scotland just over half of all Records of Needs are completed in under six months and nearly three-quarters within eight months.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the existing school rolls in Scotland has been identified as involving children with special educational needs over each of the past five years; and if he will give a breakdown per regional education department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the percentage of education authority school pupils for whom a record of needs was opened and in force in terms of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as amended, is shown in the table.

  Percentage of pupils in education authority schools and departments with a record of needs as at September 1988–921

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Scotland

  1·0

  1·0

  1·1

  1·2

  1·3

  Borders

  1·3

  1·1

  1·2

  1·4

  1·7

  Central

  1·2

  1·1

  1·2

  1·3

  1·5

  172

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1·0

  1·0

  1·3

  1·2

  1·4

  Fife

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·9

  Grampian

  1·1

  1·1

  1·2

  1·2

  1·3

  Highland

  1·5

  1·4

  1·5

  1·6

  1·7

  Lothian

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  Strathclyde

  1·1

  1·1

  1·2

  1·4

  1·5

  Tayside

  0·7

  0·5

  0·7

  0·7

  0·9

  Orkney

  0·4

  0·6

  0·5

  0·7

  0·7

  Shetland

  0·6

  0·5

  0·7

  0·7

  0·7

  Western Isles

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  0·6

  0·8

  1 Excluding nursery schools and departments.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the existing school rolls in Scotland have had records of needs(a) opened and (b) completed in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total number and percentage of children attending education authority schools (excluding nursery) in Scotland with records of needs at September in the last five years is:

  Year

  Number of pupils with record of needs

  Percentage of school roll

  1988

  7,628

  1·0

  1989

  7,236

  1·0

  1990

  7,998

  1·1

  1991

  8,669

  1·2

  1992

  9,660

  1·3

  Information on how many of these records were opened within any particular year is not collected, but a recent research report (Children with Special Educational Needs: Policy and Provision: Thomson et al: August 1989) showed that 950 records were opened in 1988, which equalled the average for the two preceding years.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the number of children with speech and language difficulties in Scotland; and how many of these attend residential schools(a) in Scotland and (b) furth of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1991, the latest year for which figures are available, 1,949 children with records of needs had language and communication difficulties, though these would not necessarily be a child's sole or main learning difficulty. Sixty seven pupils attended residential special schools in Scotland. The number of those attending residential schools furth of Scotland is not held centrally.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish details of the regional breakdown for the successful applications for the local authority mortgage-to-rent scheme;

  (2) how many applications have been received in Scotland for the local authority mortgage-to-rent scheme; how many of these applications have been successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities are able to operate mortgage-to-rent schemes on a voluntary basis. The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent announcement relating to negative equity on housing mortgages in Scotland; if he will publish details of this assessment; and how many mortgagors in Scotland have taken advantage of the regulation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The problem of negative equity is less pronounced in Scotland than in other regions of the United Kingdom, affecting only an estimated 1 per cent. of recent home buyers. It is open to anyone in that position to discuss their situation with their mortgage lender.

  Swimming
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department, in conjunction with the Scottish Consultative Committee for the Curriculum will conduct a survey into existing provisions for the tuition of swimming and water awareness in Scottish primary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: I have no plans to carry out such a survey. The responsibility for provision of swimming tuition and water awareness in Scottish primary schools rests with local authorities. The Government published national guidelines in 1992 on expressive arts for five to 14-year-olds for use by schools. This sets out guidance on the provision of physical education including swimming and water safety. Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools monitors the provision of education in primary schools.

  1988–89 (£000)

  Administration and Clerical

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Medical

  Ancillary

  Other

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  9,430

  54,966

  11,997

  10,954

  10,656

  98,003

  Ayrshire and Arran

  6,667

  39,423

  9,357

  8,657

  9,360

  73,464

  Borders

  1,911

  13,459

  2,594

  2,417

  2,707

  23,088

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,897

  21,722

  4,248

  4,410

  4,333

  37,610

  Fife

  5,747

  39,744

  8,094

  7,727

  8,241

  69,553

  Forth Valley

  5,133

  39,433

  7,115

  7,250

  7,882

  66,813

  Grampian

  11,263

  68,392

  17,523

  13,750

  14,316

  125,244

  Greater Glasgow

  27,357

  174,308

  55,024

  38,742

  48,508

  343,939

  Highland

  4,345

  29,741

  7,044

  5,072

  6,435

  52,637

  Lanarkshire

  8,205

  61,555

  14,933

  13,887

  13,208

  111,788

  Lothian

  18,674

  111,384

  35,056

  22,827

  29,938

  217,879

  Orkney

  266

  2,555

  302

  445

  337

  3,905

  Shetland

  362

  2,903

  347

  499

  680

  4,791

  Tayside

  11,031

  67,829

  17,642

  16,927

  15,969

  129,398

  Western Isles

  556

  3,992

  676

  809

  961

  6,994

  Total

  113,844

  731,406

  191,952

  154,373

  173,531

  1,365,106

  Note: "Other" includes dental staff, professions allied to medicine, other technicians, tradesmen and engineers, pharmacists, opticians and chaplains.

  1989–90 (£000)

  Administration and Clerical

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Medical

  Ancillary

  Other

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  10,589

  58,427

  12,942

  11,140

  11,583

  104,651

  Ayrshire and Arran

  7,655

  42,854

  10,186

  8,924

  10,157

  79,776

  Borders

  2,217

  14,664

  2,986

  2,444

  2,978

  25,289

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,275

  23,266

  4,491

  4,385

  4,487

  39,904

  Fife

  6,674

  42,636

  8,922

  7,150

  8,942

  74,324

  Forth Valley

  5,905

  41,912

  7,795

  7,290

  8,527

  71,429

  Grampian

  12,837

  73,941

  19,521

  12,279

  15,884

  134,462

  Greater Glasgow

  31,142

  185,296

  59,792

  31,946

  51,533

  359,709

  Highland

  5,005

  31,746

  7,797

  5,073

  7,047

  56,668

  174
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding support his Department has given in each of the last three financial years for the promotion of swimming and water safety education in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: Responsibility for swimming and water safety generally rests with Scottish local authorities in respect of swimming and water facilities which they operate. Safety at private sector swimming and water facilities rests with the operators in terms of their duties under the Health and Safety at Work, &c. Act 1974. Responsibility for water safety education in schools rests with the education authorities and headteachers. The Scottish Office Education Department issued in June 1992 programme guidelines on expressive arts for five to 14-year-olds which includes recognition of the importance of swimming and water safety education.

  Health Boards
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the salary and wage costs for each health board for each financial year from 1988–89, in respect of(a) general and senior managers, (b) administration and clerical staff, (c) nursing and midwifery staff, (d) medical staff, (e) ancillary staff and (f) all other staff; and what has been the total cost of each category to the NHS.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is given in the following tables. Details have been taken from health boards' annual accounts. General and senior managers costs are not held separately but are included within the administration and clerical staff category. Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available.
  175

  Administration and Clerical

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Medical

  Ancillary

  Other

  Total

  Lanarkshire

  9,325

  65,524

  16,150

  13,609

  14,489

  119,097

  Lothian

  21,668

  116,645

  37,983

  20,067

  32,441

  228,804

  Orkney

  298

  2,765

  328

  457

  389

  4,237

  Shetland

  471

  3,018

  405

  559

  731

  5,184

  Tayside

  12,311

  72,057

  19,008

  16,956

  17,228

  137,560

  Western Isles

  483

  4,170

  671

  787

  1,040

  7,351

  Total

  130,055

  778,921

  208,977

  143,066

  187,426

  1,448,445

  Note: "Other" includes dental staff, professions allied to medicine, other tradesmen and engineers, pharmacists, opticians and chaplains.

  1990–91 (£000's)

  Administration and Clerical

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Medical

  Ancillary

  Other

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  12,064

  62,540

  13,931

  10,845

  12,732

  112,112

  Ayrshire and Arran

  8,849

  46,665

  11,442

  9,306

  11,208

  87,470

  Borders

  2,576

  15,522

  3,201

  2,600

  3,196

  27,095

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,919

  25,098

  5,324

  4,550

  4,948

  43,839

  Fife

  8,047

  46,572

  9,719

  7,173

  10,273

  81,784

  Forth Valley

  7,016

  45,457

  8,438

  7,549

  9,320

  77,780

  Grampian

  14,963

  79,033

  21,825

  11,642

  17,103

  144,566

  Greater Glasgow

  36,734

  194,991

  64,174

  27,922

  54,851

  378,672

  Highland

  6,086

  34,467

  8,524

  5,198

  7,990

  62,265

  Lanarkshire

  11,246

  71,325

  17,324

  12,933

  15,913

  128,741

  Lothian

  24,765

  123,594

  41,180

  16,780

  35,068

  241,387

  Orkney

  402

  3,052

  382

  496

  444

  4,776

  Shetland

  653

  3,286

  411

  616

  810

  5,776

  Tayside

  14,421

  77,900

  20,265

  17,697

  19,115

  149,398

  Western Isles

  805

  4,591

  818

  795

  1,212

  8,221

  Total

  152,546

  834,093

  226,958

  136,102

  204,183

  1,553,882

  Note: "Other" includes dental staff, professions allied to medicine, other technicians, tradesmen and engineers, pharmacists, opticians and chaplains.

  1991–92 (£000)

  Administration and Clerical

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Medical

  Ancillary

  Other

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  14,178

  69,888

  15,663

  11,283

  14,522

  123,534

  Ayrshire and Arran

  10,118

  50,042

  13,395

  10,098

  13,315

  96,968

  Borders

  2,105

  16,971

  3,577

  2,135

  3,150

  27,938

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,277

  27,745

  5,474

  4,732

  4,616

  46,844

  Fife

  9,508

  50,734

  11,729

  7,784

  11,386

  91,141

  Forth Valley

  8,381

  50,044

  9,536

  8,026

  10,575

  86,562

  Grampian

  17,061

  87,057

  25,528

  12,364

  18,293

  160,303

  Greater Glasgow

  41,749

  207,025

  71,012

  28,501

  59,172

  407,459

  Highland

  7,263

  38,328

  9,695

  5,660

  9,375

  70,321

  Lanarkshire

  13,350

  78,837

  19,518

  10,849

  17,172

  139,726

  Lothian

  28,451

  135,489

  45,439

  16,317

  39,176

  264,872

  Orkney

  480

  3,563

  425

  545

  506

  5,519

  Shetland

  770

  3,650

  545

  709

  886

  6,560

  Tayside

  17,108

  85,761

  24,333

  16,678

  21,378

  165,258

  Western Isles

  919

  5,192

  929

  866

  1,465

  9,371

  Total

  175,718

  910,326

  256,798

  136,547

  224,987

  1,704,376

  Note: "Other" includes dental staff, professions allied to medicine, other technicians, tradesmen and engineers, pharmacists, opticians and chaplains.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all health board members and the names or organisation of those who nominated them.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: All non-executive members of health boards are listed below with the names of nominating bodies if any. A number of members were appointed after applying personally or after consultation with the health board concerned.
  176

  Nominating organisation if any

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Mrs. E. S. Lander

  CBI

  Mrs. J. C. Le Roux

  Cancer Research Committee

  Mr. C. H. Parker, OBE

  CBI

  Mr. M. D. Jones

  Renfrewshire Enterprise Ltd.

  Dr. J. Moffat

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Mrs. S. Nelson

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  Dr. K. G. Fegan

  —

  Mr. J. H. Greene

  —

  Miss M. W. Grosset

  —

  Miss K. A. Paterson

  —

  177

  Nominating organisation if any

  Mrs. E. Reid

  —

  Mr. W. Young

  —

  Borders Health Board

  Miss M. C. M. Marshall

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  Mr. J. P. Metcalfe

  —

  Rev. A. G. Bennett

  —

  Dr. A. G. P. Paton

  BMA

  Lady F. E. Sanderson

  Borders Local Health Council

  Mr. H. S. U. Steven

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  Mr. H. S. McFadzean

  —

  Mrs. J. D. Tulloch

  Western Joint Ophthalmic Committee

  Dr. A. P. D. Wilkinson

  BMA

  Mrs. V. M. I. Jardine-Paterson

  —

  Dr. J. R. C. Stubbs

  BMA

  Mrs. M. J. Thomson

  —

  Fife Health Board

  Dr. A. G. A. Alexander

  —

  Mr. F. J. R. Craig

  —

  Mr. G. M. Thomson

  —

  Mrs. S. L. Aitken

  —

  Mrs. C. Stenhouse

  —

  Mrs. M. Steedman, OBE

  —

  Forth Valley Health Board

  Mr. E. T. M. Bell-Scott

  —

  Dr. G. B. Hastings

  Strathclyde University

  Mrs. K. A. Smith

  WRVS

  Mr. K. Harding

  —

  Mr. P. A. Joynson

  Scottish Branch, British Red Cross Society

  Mr. C. S. R. Stroyan

  —

  Grampian Health Board

  Mrs. J. G. A. Wisely, JP

  Women into Public Life Campaign

  Mrs. C. I. Ferguson

  —

  Professor D. Ogston

  University of Aberdeen

  Mr. J. K. O. Arbuthnott

  —

  Mr. G. McLellan

  —

  Mrs. E. M. L. Park

  —

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  Mr. P. W. Holst

  BMA; Western Joint Ophthalmic Committee

  Mr. W. C. McCreath

  —

  Mr. A. Sobbie

  —

  Rev. R. D. M. Campbell

  —

  Mr. H. L. I. Runciman, CBE

  —

  Mrs. Joan S. Mackenzie

  —

  Professor R. M. Mackie

  University of Glasgow

  Highland Health Board

  Mr. J. G. Ligertwood

  —

  Mrs. A. MacPherson

  Ross and Cromarty Council of Voluntary Service

  Mrs. C. Thomson

  Ross and Cromarty Local Health Council

  Dr. J. D. MacDonald

  BMA

  Mr. D. J. Mackay

  CBI

  Mr. C. Neilson, JP

  Lochaber District Council; Lochaber Local Health Council

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Dr. W. R. Criggie

  —

  Mrs. A. S. Hinshalwood

  —

  Mr. J. P. Robison, JP

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Mrs. M. Melvin

  Lanarkshire Local Health Council

  Mr. D. A. Millar

  —

  Mr. J. Thomson, MBE

  Voluntary Association for Mental Welfare

  178

  Nominating organisation if any

  Lothian Health Board

  Mr. J. A. Campbell

  —

  Mr. R. Findlay

  —

  Councillor Mrs. M. B. M. Knox

  —

  Professor R. C. B. Aitken

  University of Edinburgh

  Mrs. G. Barton

  Lothian Regional Council; Edinburgh District Council

  Mr. G. S. Millar

  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Orkney Health Board

  Mr. J. Flett

  —

  Mr. E. M. Gibson, MBE

  —

  Mr. J. Rendall

  Voluntary Services, Orkney

  Captain M. Gunn

  CBI

  Mrs. E. Kerr

  Orkney Local Health Council

  Dr. J. S. Walker

  BMA

  Shetland Health Board

  Mrs. M. U. Colligan

  Shetland Islands Council

  Squadron Leader B. P. Gregson

  —

  Mr. R. L. Johnson

  —

  Mrs. T. A. Leslie

  —

  Dr. M. D. Hunter

  BMA

  Mr. J. Telford

  —

  Tayside Health Board

  Rev. K. Campbell

  —

  Mr. D. W. M. Davidson, JP

  Area Pharmaceutical Committee

  Mrs. V. Joiner

  Dundee and Tayside Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Mr. H. C. Nicoll

  —

  Professor R. E. Olver

  University of Dundee

  Mr. I. Sandison

  —

  Western Isles Health Board

  Mrs. C. R. MacAskill

  —

  Mr. J. A. Harrison

  —

  Dr. S. M. Bryden

  —

  Mr. A. W. Hay

  CBI

  Mrs. F. T. M. MacDonald

  Scottish Trades Union Congress

  Mr. M. Maclennan

  —

  NHS Managers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average cost of employing each managerial staff member in the NHS for each financial year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 June 1993]: The information requested is not available centrally. From data for the earnings of around one third of managerial staff in Scotland, an approximate figure may be calculated for the average cost of employing a manager for each year since 1989–90 and this is shown in the table:

  Estimated cost of employing a manager in the NHS in Scotland.

  Year1

  Average cost2 (£000)

  31989–90

  23·1

  1990–91

  25·6

  1991–92

  27·9

  1992–93

  28·0

  1 Information is not available for 1988–89.

  2 The cost includes all salary costs plus employers' contributions for superannuation and national insurance. The averages are based on general managers, senior managers and administrative and clerical grades 7–10 (grade 18 and above in 1989–90).

  3 1989–90 data are estimated using the midpoint salary scales.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial controls operate in connection with the payment to local authorities and the payment to claimants of home improvement grants in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 July 1993]: Local authorities finance the payment of improvement and repairs grants from their annual non-housing revenue account capital allocations, the amounts of which are subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on housing improvement grants in Scotland including the total amount paid in the last five financial years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 July 1993]: House improvement grants play an important part in maintaining the condition of the stock generally. Local authorities' expenditure on improvement grants is as follows:

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1987–88

  52·6

  1988–89

  59·9

  1989–90

  60·9

  1990–91

  51·7

  1991–92

  63·2

  Expenditure on repairs, conversion and standard amenity grants have not been included in the figures given above. Expenditure on these grants in 1991–92 was £50·2 million.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nurses' Pay
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the average gross weekly earnings and make-up of pay by type of pay or allowances for each of the clinical grades for nursing and midwifery staff in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is provided in the tables.

  Average gross weekly earnings for clinical nursing grades (full-time) in Northern Ireland

  Clinical grade

  Gross pay £

  Basic pay £

  allowances £

  1991–92

  Scale A

  165·82

  139·85

  25·85

  Scale B

  179·30

  158·45

  20·85

  Scale C

  225·50

  190·61

  34·89

  Scale D

  235·97

  200·78

  35·19

  Percentage distribution of average gross weekly earnings for clinical nursing and midwifery grades in Northern Ireland 1991–92.

  Clinical Grade

  Scale A Per cent.

  Scale B Per cent.

  Scale C Per cent.

  Scale D Per cent.

  Scale E Per cent.

  Scale F Per cent.

  Scale G Per cent.

  Scale H Per cent.

  Scale I Per cent.

  <140

  11·9

  05·1

  02·3

  10·8

  01·5

  01·8

  00·6

  01·1

  00·0

  <150

  08·1

  01·7

  00·3

  00·9

  00·1

  00·0

  00·1

  00·5

  00–0

  <160

  15·5

  12·8

  00·3

  00·6

  00·1

  00·0

  00·2

  00·0

  00·0

  <170

  12·7

  20·5

  00·6

  01·6

  00·2

  00·3

  00·8

  00·0

  00·0

  <180

  18·9

  14·5

  01·5

  01·7

  00·1

  00·0

  01·1

  00·0

  00·0

  180

  Clinical grade

  Gross pay £

  Basic pay £

  Allowances £

  Scale E

  283·90

  241·49

  42·41

  Scale F

  329·66

  284·24

  45·42

  Scale G

  350·80

  320·42

  30·38

  Scale E

  380·62

  353·46

  27·16

  Scale I

  415·72

  395·24

  20·48

  1992–93

  Scale A

  179·12

  151·01

  28·11

  Scale B

  205·07

  176·55

  28·52

  Scale C

  242·84

  205·49

  37·35

  Scale D

  258·43

  219·45

  38·98

  Scale E

  303·88

  258·20

  45·68

  Scale F

  349·66

  306·84

  42·82

  Scale G

  380·61

  348·46

  32·15

  Scale H

  409·15

  383·41

  25·74

  Scale I

  446·17

  428·20

  17·97

  Nursing Staff
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will give details of the numbers of unqualified national health service nursing staff joining the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992 who were(a) joining directly after completing full-time education, (b) aged under 21 years, (c) joining from other NHS units, (d) joining from other care sector employment, (e) joining from other employment, (f) joining from non-activity in the labour market and (g) joining from unemployment;

  (2) if he will give details of the numbers of qualified nursing or midwifery staff joining the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992 who were (a) newly qualifying student nurses with employed status, (b) newly qualifying Project 2000 students, (c) registered nurses entering the NHS after a period of non-employment, (d) joined NHS units directly after being employed by another NHS unit and (e) joined NHS units directly after being employed in other nursing, such as general practitioner nursing, nursing homes, independent hospitals etc;

  (3) if he will give details of the numbers of qualified, unqualified and learner nursing staff who joined the national health service in 1991 and 1992.

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

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the distribution of average gross weekly earnings per person for each of the national health service clinical nursing and midwifery grades, listing the percentages of each grade earning under £140, £150, £160, £170, £180, £190, £200, £ 210, £220, £230, £240, £250, £275, £300 and those earning £300 and over in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is provided in the tables.
  181

  Clinical Grade

  Scale A Per cent.

  Scale B Per cent.

  Scale C Per cent.

  Scale D Per cent.

  Scale E Per cent.

  Scale F Per cent.

  Scale G Per cent.

  Scale H Per cent.

  Scale I Per cent.

  <190

  15·9

  11·9

  02·2

  01·8

  00·3

  00·0

  00·2

  01·1

  00·6

  <200

  06·5

  10·2

  05·0

  02·1

  00·3

  00·3

  00·2

  01·1

  00·6

  <210

  05·1

  09·4

  09·4

  04·6

  00·6

  00·0

  00·1

  00·0

  00·6

  <220

  03·1

  03·4

  11·6

  12·8

  00·5

  00·3

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  <230

  00·7

  03·4

  19·9

  27·1

  00·9

  00·0

  00·2

  00·0

  00·0

  <240

  00·6

  01·7

  21·0

  31·0

  01·8

  00·9

  00·3

  00·0

  00·0

  <250

  00·2

  02·5

  10·0

  29·9

  02·7

  02·4

  00·1

  00·0

  00·0

  <275

  00·1

  00·8

  11·4

  47·1

  21·1

  02·1

  00·7

  00·0

  00·6

  <300

  00·0

  00·8

  03·3

  17·3

  40·9

  08·2

  02·2

  00·0

  00·0

  300+

  00·1

  00·8

  00·6

  9·4

  27·9

  83·5

  92·6

  95·9

  97·2

  1 Totals may not add up due to rounding

  Percentage distribution of average gross weekly earnings for clinical nursing and midwifery grades in Northern Ireland 1992–93.

  Clinical Grade

  Scale A Per cent.

  Scale B Per cent.

  Scale C Per cent.

  Scale D Per cent.

  Scale E Per cent.

  Scale F Per cent.

  Scale G Per cent.

  Scale H Per cent.

  Scale I Per cent.

  <140

  05·5

  02·2

  01·8

  07·2

  01·4

  01·2

  00·3

  01·4

  00·0

  <150

  03·1

  00·5

  00·1

  00·5

  00·1

  00·0

  00·1

  00·0

  00·0

  <160

  08·9

  00·0

  00·3

  00·2

  00·1

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  <170

  15·7

  07·4

  00·3

  00·5

  00·3

  00·6

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  <180

  13·2

  06·2

  00·1

  00·4

  00·1

  00·0

  00·2

  00·0

  00·0

  <190

  17·2

  17·7

  00·5

  00·8

  00·1

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  <200

  16·2

  06·8

  01·3

  01·5

  00·3

  00·0

  00·1

  00·0

  00·0

  <210

  08·1

  10·8

  02·7

  02·3

  00·3

  00·0

  00·1

  00·0

  00·0

  <220

  04·9

  17·1

  05·8

  02·3

  00·3

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  <230

  03·7

  12·5

  09·7

  05·6

  00·3

  00·3

  00·1

  00·0

  00·0

  <240

  01·8

  06·8

  13·2

  16·2

  00·8

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  00·0

  <250

  00·6

  05·1

  21·4

  28·4

  00·8

  00·0

  00·0

  00·4

  00·0

  <275

  00·4

  05·1

  31·7

  71·5

  06·7

  02·7

  00·8

  00·0

  00·0

  <300

  00·0

  00·5

  08·5

  36·0

  22·6

  04·6

  00·4

  00·9

  00·0

  300+

  00·0

  00·5

  01·7

  25·5

  65·0

  90·4

  97·4

  97·1

  100·0

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the number of NHS nursing and midwifery staff by pay grades within the groups of senior nursing and midwifery staff, educational

  1990

  1991

  Percentage Change

  1992

  Percentage Change

  Senior nursing staff

  78

  66

  -15·38

  67

  +0·01

  Educational staff

  298

  300

  +0·67

  295

  -1·67

  Scale A

  3,084

  3,256

  +5·58

  3,177

  -2·43

  Scale B

  318

  463

  +45·60

  609

  +31·53

  Scale C

  1,354

  1,222

  -9·75

  1,137

  -6·95

  Scale D

  4,034

  4,415

  +9·44

  4,536

  +2·74

  Scale E

  6,030

  5,898

  -2·19

  5,711

  -3·17

  Scale F

  453

  446

  -1·54

  467

  +4·70

  Scale G

  2,295

  2,218

  -3·35

  2,117

  -4·55

  Scale H

  184

  224

  +21·74

  243

  +8·48

  Scale I

  185

  166

  -10·27

  156

  -6·02

  Student nursing

  2,121

  1,362

  -35·78

  631

  -53·67

  Project 2000 Student nurses

  188

  861

  +358·00

  1,441

  67·40

  Notes: Information for 1989 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Project 2000 nurses scheme started in September 1990.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will give details of the total number and whole-time equivalent number of health care assistants or health care support workers employed wholly or primarily in nursing roles by the national health service in 1990, 1991 and 1992;
  182
  staff, clinical nursing and midwifery staff, learners, and other staff, and to list the number of Project 2000 nursing students, in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 and the percentage change between each year.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  (2) if he will give details of the total number and whole-time equivalent numbers of health care assistants or health care support workers employed by the national health service in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no health care assistants or health care support workers employed in the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland.
  183
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the whole-time equivalent numbers of(a) agency and (b) bank nursing and midwifery staff employed in the national health service for each year from 1987 to 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no agency nurses employed in the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland.

  The numbers of bank nurses (whole-time equivalent) are:

  Number

  1987

  1—

  1988

  1—

  1989

  1—

  1990

  40·38

  1989

  1990

  1961

  1992

  WTE

  Percentage of total

  WTE

  Percentage of total

  WTE

  Percentage of total

  WTE

  Percentage of total

  Total nursing midwifery

  18,096·12

  100·0

  17,996·93

  100·0

  17,526·67

  100·0

  16,554·05

  100·0

  Trained nursing

  12,507·94

  69·1

  12,471·98

  69·3

  12,506·44

  71·3

  12,343·90

  74·6

  Student nursing

  2,733·03

  15·1

  12,578·24

  14·3

  21,766·30

  10·1

  3942·40

  5·7

  Other nursing

  2,855·15

  15·8

  2,946·71

  16·4

  3,253·93

  18·6

  3,267·75

  19·7

  Notes:

  WTE = whole-time equivalents.

  1 Excludes 188 Project 2000 student nurses.

  2 Excludes 861 Project 2000 student nurses.

  3 Excludes 1,441 Project 2000 student nurses.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the numbers of

  Number of pre-registered students by parts of register Part of register1

  Year2

  1

  1/degree

  3

  5

  7

  8

  1/8

  10

  11

  12/degree

  12

  13

  14

  15

  1989

  1,959

  77

  411

  88

  41

  60

  95

  162

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  1,937

  811

  415

  101

  —

  31

  126

  153

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  1,694

  85

  353

  65

  —

  24

  110

  149

  31

  27

  214

  34

  17

  16

  1992

  1,221

  38

  262

  62

  —

  15

  94

  139

  30

  59

  627

  122

  58

  45

  1 Register is the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Register.

  2 At 31 March.

  The information sought on academic qualifications is not held in a form that can be separately identifiable, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the numbers of whole-time equivalent national health service nursing and midwifery staff employed on each grade and pay point of the clinical grades, educational grades and senior nursing and midwifery pay spine in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  Details of the number of whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff are as follows:

  1991

  1992

  Senior nursing staff

  74·11

  65·00

  Scale A

  2,737·79

  2,899·24

  Scale B

  226·68

  342·47

  Scale C

  1,124·27

  995·37

  Scale D

  3,448·58

  3,798·34

  Scale E

  4,884·96

  4,733·83

  Scale F

  430·92

  419·23

  Scale G

  2,221·14

  2,142·14

  184

  Number

  1991

  47·40

  1992

  42·46

  1 Information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the numbers of qualified national health service nurses and midwives, unqualified NHS nursing staff, and nursing learners, and represent these as a percentage of the total NHS nursing and midwifery staff, for the years 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  entrants to initial pre-registration nursing education by course of study and by the academic qualifications possessed by entrants in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  Details are as follows:

  1991

  1992

  Scale H

  183·40

  223·40

  Scale I

  184·64

  165·67

  Educational grades

  284·73

  288·80

  Note: Information for 1990 and details of nurses on pay points is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  National Health Service Staff
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the numbers of health service directly-employed staff by main staff group for each year from 1987 to 1992 and give the changes between each year and over the whole period in numbers and percentages.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:
  185

  HPSS work force by staff group (whole-time equivalents)

  Main Staff Groups

  1988 Compared with 1987

  1989 Compared with 1988

  1990 Compared with 1989

  1987

  1988

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  1989

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  1990

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  Medical

  2,007·66

  2,036·91

  + 20·25

  + 1·46

  2,073·52

  + 36·51

  + 1·8

  1,997·57

  95·95

  -4·63

  Trained Nursing

  12,293·16

  12,581·10

  + 287·94

  + 2·34

  12,507·94

  -73·16

  -0·58

  12,471·98

  -35·96

  -0·29

  Student Nursing

  2,924·00

  2,841·90

  -82·10

  -2·81

  2,733·03

  -108·87

  -3·83

  11,678·24

  -154·79

  -5·66

  Other Nursing

  2,747·84

  2,776·61

  + 28·77

  + 1·05

  2,855·15

  + 78·54

  + 2·83

  2,946·71

  + 91·56

  + 3·21

  Paramedical

  2,365·76

  2,440·54

  + 74·78

  + 3·16

  2,484·12

  +43·58

  + 1·79

  2,564·08

  + 69·96

  + 2·82

  Admin and Clerical

  5,787·98

  5,944·29

  + 156·31

  + 2·70

  6,257·90

  + 313·61

  + 5·28

  6,748·95

  + 491·05

  + 7·85

  Domestic and Allied

  8,927·95

  8,510·79

  -417·16

  -4·67

  7,905·80

  -604·99

  -7·11

  7,127·49

  -778·31

  -9·84

  Tradesmen

  951·61

  927·00

  -24·61

  -2·59

  913·00

  -14·00

  -1·51

  878·00

  -35·00

  -3·83

  Other Grades

  611·73

  596·97

  -14·76

  -2·41

  556·78

  -40·19

  -6·73

  526·78

  -30·00

  -5·39

  Social Services

  4,380·29

  4,463·17

  + 82·88

  +1·89

  4,552·56

  + 89·39

  + 2·00

  4,624·16

  + 71·60

  + 1·57

  Dental

  361·24

  355·71

  -5·53

  -1·53

  344·80

  -10·91

  -3·07

  339·84

  -4·96

  -1·44

  Pharmacy

  235·09

  237·60

  + 2·51

  + 1·07

  247·70

  + 10·10

  -4·25

  250·39

  + 2·96

  + 1·09

  Ambulance

  579·25

  575·75

  -3·50

  -0·60

  567·84

  -7·91

  -1·37

  588·43

  + 20·59

  + 3·63

  Home Helps

  2,965·81

  2,758·82

  -206·99

  -6·98

  2,703·14

  -55·68

  -2·02

  2,373·48

  -329·66

  -12·20

  Total

  47,139·37

  47,047·16

  -92·21

  -0·20

  46,703·28

  -343·88

  -0·73

  45,986·10

  -717·18

  -1·51

  Excludes 188 Project 2000 Student Nurses

  HPSS work force by staff group (whole-time equivalents)

  Main Staff Groups

  1991 Compared with 1990

  1992 Compared with 1991

  1992 Compared with 1987

  1991

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  1992

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  Medical

  2,027·22

  +49·65

  + 2·51

  1,943·82

  -8·34

  -4·11

  + 63·84

  -3·18

  Trained Nursing

  12,506·44

  + 34·46

  + 0·28

  12,343·90

  -162·54

  -1·30

  + 50·74

  + 0·41

  Student Nursing

  11,786·30

  -811·94

  -31·49

  2942·40

  -823·9

  46·65

  -1,998·60

  -67·77

  Other Nursing

  3,253·93

  + 307·22

  +10·43

  3,267·75

  + 13·82

  + 0·43

  + 519·91

  + 18·92

  Paramedical

  2,679·21

  + 125·13

  +4·9

  2,746·00

  + 66·79

  + 2·49

  + 380·24

  + 16·07

  Admin and Clerical

  7,379·17

  + 630·22

  + 9·34

  7,632·45

  + 253·28

  + 3·43

  + 1,844·67

  + 31·87

  Domestic and Allied

  6,215·58

  -911·91

  -12·79

  5,678·67

  -536·91

  -8·64

  -3,249·28

  -36·39

  Tradesmen

  839·00

  -39·00

  -4·44

  801·00

  -38·00

  -4·53

  -150·61

  -15·83

  Other Grades

  476·85

  -49·93

  -9·48

  480·15

  + 3·30

  + 0·69

  -131·58

  -21·51

  Social Services

  4,628·71

  + 4·55

  + 0·10

  4,596·99

  -31·72

  -0·69

  + 216·70

  + 4·95

  Dental

  325·50

  -14·34

  -4·22

  321·02

  -4·48

  -1·38

  -40·22

  -11·13

  Pharmacy

  255·11

  + 4·72

  +1·89

  253·88

  -1·23

  -0·48

  + 18·79

  + 7·99

  Ambulance

  579·75

  -8·68

  -1·48

  673·24

  + 93·39

  + 16·13

  +93·99

  + 16·23

  Home Helps

  2,268·62

  -104·86

  -4·42

  2,085·85

  -182·77

  -8·06

  -879·96

  -29·67

  Total

  45,201·40

  -784·70

  -1·71

  43,767·12

  -1,434·28

  -3·17

  -3,372·25

  -7·15

  1Excludes 861 Project 2000 Student Nurses.

  2 Excludes 1,441 Project 200 Student Nurses.

  Rural Housing Association
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many potential sites for rural housing developments in the eastern part of Northern Ireland have been identified by the Omagh-based Rural Housing Association; and if he will publish details.

  Mr. Atkins
  Rural Housing Association has identified four such sites at Glenarm, Armoy, Annalong and Strangford. The scheme at Glenarm for five units of general family housing is currently programmed to go on site in 1994–95. None of the other projects is yet in the association's three-year programme.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to establish a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to determine compensation for people in Northern Ireland injured by terrorism;

  (2) what plans he has to reduce recourse to the courts in cases of compensation for criminal injuries suffered by (a) civilians or (b) serving military personnel;
  186
  (3) if he will make it his policy to maintain the entitlement of serving military personnel injured by terrorist action in Northern Ireland to pursue in court within the normal rules for eligibility for legal aid claims against the Government for compensation.

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to issue a White Paper shortly outlining proposals for a new tariff-based compensation scheme in Great Britain. I will study the White Paper carefully before considering whether there are lessons to be learnt for Northern Ireland. If changes are, in consequence, proposed to the current Northern Ireland criminal injuries compensation scheme, I will then consult widely with all interested parties.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claims for compensation as a result of injuries caused to(a) civilians and (b) serving military personnel by terrorist action in Northern Ireland were settled (i) by judicial decision and (ii) out of court in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Compensation Agency that the information requested is as follows:
  187

  Settled by court (c)

  Settled out of court

  1992–93

  Civilians (a)

  88

  1,502

  Military personnel (b)

  3

  153

  Notes:

  (a) Includes members of the RUC and RUC(R).

  (b) Comprises Army and UDR/RIR (full and part-time).

  (c) Settled by county courts and the High Court.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been written off in bad debt by LEDU since it was created.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since its creation in 1971 up to 31 March 1993, LEDU has written off a total of £6,241,640 in bad debt.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prosecutions have been brought under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989; and if he will list the employers who have been prosecuted.

  Mr. Atkins
  At 2 July 1993, 53 prosecutions had been brought by the Fair Employment Commission under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989.

  The list of employers who have been prosecuted is as follows:

  Adamsez NI Ltd.

  Aircraft Furnishing Ltd.

  Allingham Transport

  Anglo Beef Processors Ltd.

  ATS Northern Ireland Ltd.

  Audio Times Ltd.

  Baird Joseph

  Barret Electrical Contracts Ltd.

  Business and Scientific Services Ltd.

  Carna Transport (Ireland) Ltd.

  Carr Charles

  Circuits and Systems Design Ltd.

  Connor Freight

  Cootes (Concrete Products) Ltd.

  Dennison Storage Ltd.

  Devine B.

  Dromore Properties Ltd.

  Dunellen Ltd.

  Fortfield Motors (Carrickfergus) Ltd.

  Gordon Norman

  Greenan Inns Ltd.

  Hamilton Alex M. and Co. Ltd.

  Hogg R. and Sons Ltd.

  Hughes Joseph

  Industrial Estates Management

  Kernan (Compost) Ltd.

  Knock Na Moe Hotel Ltd.

  Laser Electrical Ltd.

  Limavady Autopoint

  188

  Logan's Coach and Minibus

  Loughside Garage Ltd.

  Lovell and Christmas

  McAnerney Sean

  McLaughlin William and Sons Ltd.

  McParland and Gordon Ltd.

  Motorway Tyres and Accessories Ltd.

  Moyola Glazing

  Newington Cavehill Community Services

  Otis Elevator plc

  Quinn AA (Builders) Ltd.

  Roulston and McLaughlin NI Ltd.

  Sands and Toner (Newry) Ltd.

  Square One Fashions Ltd.

  Starplan Furniture

  Tensator (NI) Ltd.

  Tohani R. R. and Sons

  Tracey Kitchens Ltd.

  Turkington Raymond Decorations Ltd.

  Turven Construction Ltd.

  Universal Cleaning Supplies Ltd.

  Wilson Liam

  Wilson Robert

  Wilsons of Rathkenny Ltd.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been written off by the IDB and its predecessors in bad debt since 1974.

  Mr. Atkins
  From 1982–83, when IDB was set up, to 1991–92 a total of £518·1 million has been written off in accordance with government accounting procedures. A substantial portion of this sum, including £414·9 million in respect of Harland and Wolff plc, relates to the voluntary waiver of claims as opposed to bad debts. It is not possible to provide precise, disaggregated figures for these two elements. In addition, in 1989–90, before responsibility for the company was transferred to IDB, the Department of Economic Development wrote off a waiver of £390 million in connection with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc. For the period prior to 1982–83 information in respect of IDB's predecessors is either not available in the form requested or cannot be sufficiently disaggregated to provide comparable figures.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those employers who have been debarred from public service contracts or from receiving Government grants under the provisions of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  Only one company, Dunellen Ltd., has been subject to disqualification under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. This disqualifi-cation was lifted after the company complied with its obligations under the Act.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to keeping figures for youth training participation in the London borough of Newham separately.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) are required to provide information at four-weekly intervals of the number of young people in youth training. We have no plans to require information to be provided at a more local level.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment within what time it is guaranteed to find a youth training placement for each person who wants one.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) are contractually required to offer entry into youth training (YT) for young people in the guarantee groups within certain specified periods of time.

  For young people leaving school and registering for YT for the first time this summer, this will mean a start in training within the period up to the first working day in January (that is, no later than when their parents' entitlement to the extended child benefit runs out).

  For those who have already been in YT or a job, the entitlement is the offer of a start in training within eight weeks of registering for YT with the Careers Service (that is, within the period for which they may be eligible to claim YT bridging allowance).

  Full details of the entitlements of those covered by the YT guarantees are contained in clauses B7–15 of annex B to the TEC operating agreement 1993, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will increase the youth training allowances.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are no set allowances for youth training. The Government provide a minimum allowance which I believe is sufficient to meet the normal requirements of trainees living in the parental home.

  However, employers are the main beneficiaries of the Government's investment in training and are strongly encouraged to supplement trainee incomes.

  In addition, trainees who live independently may apply for income support if they consider their income is insufficient to meet their needs.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are seeking youth training for the second time.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the total number of young people seeking youth training (YT) for the second time is not available. However, the latest information (June) on the number of 16 and 17-year-olds covered by the YT guarantee in England showed that 37 per cent. of those waiting for eight weeks or more had already had YT on one or more occasion.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds in Nottinghamshire are without a job, or a place on a training scheme and are not in full-time education.
  190
  Miss Widdecombe
  In April 1993 there were 358 unemployed cliamants aged 16 and 17 years in the Nottinghamshire county.

  Changes to the benefit regulations in September 1988 coincided with the extension of a guaranteed youth training scheme (YTS), now youth training (YT), place to all those aged under 18 not in full-time education or employment, which meant that those who declined an offer of a YTS place were no longer entitled to benefit. However, there are still a small number of under 18-year-olds entitled to benefit due to special circumstan-ces, such as severe hardship or by virtue of their being orphans.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of young people leave youth training to enter full-time employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest figures show that 47 per cent. of all young people in Great Britain were in full-time employment six months after leaving youth training.

  Quangos (Appointments)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment and the part which the former hon. member represented.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following two appointments have been made:Christopher Chope—Health and Safety Commissioner. Annual fee of £1,060 plus an attendance allowance of £105 for each fortnightly meeting attended. Appointment for three years from 1 April 1993.
  Former Conservative MP.
  William S. Hilton—Employer Member to the Board of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB). (Also a member of the CITB Administration Committee.) Eligible for allowances for loss of remunerative time. Appointment for the period November 1984 to April 1990, (re-appointed in July 1988).
  Former Labour MP.

  It is not possible on the grounds of disproportionate cost to include details of any appointments to the Committees for the Employment of People with Disabilities, the Industrial Tribunals, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, with a total of over 2,250 appointees.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the expenditure of job clubs nationally, regionally and by area for 1992–93; and what is the budget for job clubs nationally, regionally and by area for 1993–94.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Ron Leighton, dated 7 July 1993:
  191
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the level of expenditure of Jobclubs nationally, regionally and by area for 1992–93; and the budget for Jobclubs nationally, regionally and by area for 1993–94. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The Jobclub programme is delivered by both external providers as well as internally by Jobcentre staff. This means I am unable to provide you with the total actual expenditure on Jobclubs for 1992–93 because we do not monitor internal expenditure by function. Most internal jobclubs are situated within a jobcentre and any expenditure will be set against the office cost of staffing, post and telecommunications etc. However, I am able to provide you with details of the total budget allocated. The tables attached provide this informa-tion together with details of the Jobclub budget for 1993–94.

  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Job club budgets area information region by region

  Budget allocation £ million

  Area

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  0·622

  0·586

  County Durham

  0·405

  0·534

  South Tyne

  0·918

  1·116

  North Tyne

  0·679

  0·840

  Regional Office

  0·019

  0·018

  Total

  2·643

  3·094

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Humberside

  0·613

  0·960

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  0·695

  0·846

  Leeds and North Yorkshire

  0·622

  0·824

  Bradford

  0·657

  0·899

  Wakefield

  0·441

  0·724

  Regional Office

  0·040

  0·581

  Total

  3·068

  4·834

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  0·710

  0·721

  Nottinghamshire

  0·851

  1·192

  Derbyshire

  0·849

  0·875

  Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire

  0·915

  0·939

  Leicestershire and Lincolnshire

  1·057

  1·113

  Regional office

  0·071

  0·552

  Total

  4·453

  5·392

  London and South East region

  Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, North Buckinhamshire

  0·860

  1·475

  Essex

  0·805

  1·873

  Berkshire, Oxfordshire, South Buckinghamshire

  0·676

  1·233

  Central London

  0·859

  0·967

  North East London

  0·766

  1·012

  East London

  0·795

  1·049

  North London

  0·971

  1·557

  North West London

  0·716

  1·124

  Hampshire, Isle of Wight

  0·992

  1·358

  Sussex and Surrey

  0·963

  1·832

  Kent

  1·112

  2·163

  West London

  0·750

  1·301

  South East London

  0·748

  0·962

  South London

  0·826

  1·430

  South West London

  0·931

  1·396

  Regional office

  0·044

  0·285

  Total

  12·814

  21·017

  192

  Budget allocation £ million

  Area

  1992–93

  1993–94

  South West Region

  Cornwall and Plymouth

  0·631

  0·981

  Somerset and Dorset

  0·544

  0·907

  Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  0·608

  0·882

  Devon

  0·596

  0·753

  Avon

  0·780

  1·295

  Regional office

  0·026

  0·034

  Total

  3·185

  4·852

  Office for Wales

  North Wales

  0·460

  0·471

  South East Wales

  0·665

  0·754

  Mid/South Wales

  0·674

  0·722

  South West Wales

  0·644

  0·693

  Office for Wales

  0·013

  0·013

  Total

  2·456

  2·653

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1·165

  1·375

  Coventry and Warwicks

  0·747

  0·935

  Dudley and Sandwell

  0·502

  0·747

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  0·549

  0·850

  Staffs

  0·618

  0·809

  Marches

  0·864

  1·053

  Regional Office

  0·012

  0·104

  Total

  4·457

  5·873

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  0·817

  0·989

  Cumbria

  0·264

  0·430

  Lancashire

  0·798

  1·088

  Liverpool and Wirral

  0·840

  0·848

  Manchester Central

  0·793

  0·913

  Manchester East

  0·621

  0·758

  Manchester West

  0·751

  1·006

  Merseyside Outer

  0·764

  1·131

  Regional Office

  0·032

  0·030

  Total

  5·680

  7·113

  Office for Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Inverclyde and Argyll

  0·454

  0·593

  Glasgow North and Dunbarton

  0·638

  0·773

  Glasgow South and Renfrew

  0·591

  0·815

  Highlands Islands and Grampian

  0·432

  0·401

  Lothian and Borders

  0·440

  0·751

  Lanarkshire and Central

  0·780

  0·769

  Tayside and Fife

  0·458

  0·568

  Office for Scotland

  0·011

  Nil

  TOTAL

  3·804

  4·670

  Job club budgets national and regional totals

  £ million

  Budget allocation

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Regions

  Northern

  2·643

  3·094

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3·068

  4·834

  East Midlands and Eastern

  4·453

  5·392

  London and South Eastern

  12·814

  21·017

  South West

  3·185

  4·852

  Office for Wales

  2·456

  2·653

  West Midlands

  4·457

  5·873

  North West

  5·680

  7·113

  Office for Scotland

  3·804

  4·670

  National Total

  42·560

  59·498

  193
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the actual throughflow of clients through job clubs nationally, regionally and by area for 1992–93; what is the targeted throughflow for 1993–94; what was the actual job entry rate for job clubs nationally, regionally and by area for 1992–93; and what is the targeted job entry rate for 1993–94.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Ron Leighton, dated 7 July 1993:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write direct to you to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the performance of jobclubs in 1992–93 and the targets for

  Job club performance information

  Throughflow

  Entrants

  Job entry rate

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 target

  1992–93 actual (per cent.)

  1993–94 actual (per cent.)

  Northern

  14,003

  18,246

  40

  44

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  18,477

  23,930

  47

  50

  East Midlands and Eastern

  19,426

  25,425

  48

  50

  London and South East

  63,769

  79,359

  41

  45

  South West

  15,301

  21,004

  48

  46

  Office for Wales

  12,084

  14,970

  53

  52

  West Midlands

  21,198

  28,879

  44

  48

  North West

  31,530

  35,235

  44

  46

  Office for Scotland

  20,891

  26,296

  49

  50

  National

  216,679

  273,344

  45

  47

  Job club performance information

  Through flow

  Entrants

  Job entry (per cent.)

  Area

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 target

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 target

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  2,578

  3,524

  37

  44

  County Durham

  2,782

  3,347

  39

  44

  South Tyne

  4,466

  6,060

  44

  44

  North Tyne

  4,177

  5,315

  39

  44

  Total

  14,003

  18,246

  40

  44

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Humberside

  3,649

  5.010

  50

  50

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  4,180

  4,741

  42

  50

  Leeds and North Yorkshire

  3,380

  4,719

  50

  50

  Bradford

  4,132

  5,010

  47

  50

  Wakefield

  3,136

  4,450

  48

  50

  Total

  18,477

  23,930

  47

  50

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  3,062

  3,260

  40

  50

  Nottinghamshire

  3,750

  7,351

  46

  50

  Derbyshire

  4,050

  4,675

  47

  50

  Cambridgeshire and Northants

  3,727

  4,304

  54

  50

  Leicestershire and Lincolnshire

  4,837

  5,835

  51

  50

  Total

  19,426

  25,425

  48

  50

  194
  1993–94. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The information you asked for is given in the attached tables. They show the actual throughflow, ie numbers leaving jobclub, in 1992–93. The figures for 1993–94 are the planned number of entrants, ie numbers joining the programme, as throughflow information is not available. Although there are differences in the definitions, the numerical differences will in practice be small and year on year comparisons can be made.

  The jobclub programme is being expanded in 1993–94 and 295,000 places are available of which 273,344 have so far been allocated. The remaining allocation of places is currently in the planning stage. This is because the results of evaluation exercises linked to specialist and supportive jobclub provision are being considered before further expansion can be finalised.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Through flow

  Entrants

  Job entry (per cent.)

  Area

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 target

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 target

  South West Region

  Cornwall and Plymouth

  2,853

  3,760

  46

  47

  Somerset and Devon

  2,761

  4,022

  41

  46

  Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  3,028

  4,378

  44

  46

  Devon

  3,529

  3,865

  53

  47

  Avon

  3,130

  4,979

  52

  46

  Total

  15,301

  21,004

  48

  46

  London and South East Region

  Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, North Buckinghamshire

  4,117

  5,466

  41

  45

  Essex

  3,856

  5,580

  42

  45

  Berkshire, Oxfordshire, South Buckinghamshire

  3,652

  5,210

  44

  45

  Central London

  4,595

  4,311

  40

  45

  North East London

  3,747

  4,370

  49

  45

  East London

  3,483

  4,460

  38

  45

  North London

  4,984

  5,937

  35

  45

  North West London

  4,911

  5,040

  36

  45

  Hampshire, Isle of Wight

  5,777

  6,692

  40

  45

  Sussex and Surrey

  4,368

  7,254

  41

  45

  Kent

  5,183

  6,278

  41

  45

  West London

  3,387

  4,548

  50

  45

  South East London

  3,362

  4,104

  39

  45

  South London

  3,066

  4,550

  40

  45

  195

  Through flow

  Entrants

  Job entry (per cent.)

  Area

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 target

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 target

  South West London

  5,281

  5,559

  39

  45

  Total

  63,769

  79,359

  41

  45

  Office for Wales

  North Wales 2,278

  3,075

  53

  54

  South East Wales

  3,484

  4,395

  61

  55

  Mid/South Wales

  3,022

  3,685

  42

  46

  South West Wales

  3,300

  3,815

  53

  55

  Total

  12,084

  14,970

  53

  52

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  5,139

  6,807

  39

  45

  Coventry and Warwicks

  3,416

  4,397

  47

  47

  Dudley and Sandwell

  2,744

  3,982

  47

  50

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  2,444

  4,179

  50

  55

  Staffs.

  3,487

  4,517

  40

  47

  Marches

  3,968

  4,997

  48

  48

  Total

  21,198

  28,879

  44

  48

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  4,574

  4,743

  46

  45

  Cumbria

  1,885

  2,078

  39

  42

  Lancashire

  5,092

  5,209

  46

  48

  Liverpool and Wirral

  3,940

  4,453

  47

  48

  Manchester Central

  3,427

  4,538

  38

  42

  Manchester East

  3,833

  4,147

  45

  45

  Employees in employment in manufacturing industries

  (Thousands)

  North West

  Lancashire

  Burnley travel-to-work area

  June 1979

  971

  n/a

  n/a

  September 19811

  800

  183

  18

  June 1983

  694

  n/a

  n/a

  September 19841

  671

  154

  14

  September 19871

  663

  161

  17

  September 19911

  576

  144

  14

  December 1992

  525

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = not available

  1 Census of employment information

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the budget for each TEC for 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate regional offices are currently finalising contracts with training and enterprise councils (TECs) for 1993–94 budgets and the information is not yet available.

  We have decided that TEC level information should only be released publicly six months after the beginning of the contracting year. The information must remain commercially confidential while TECs are negotiating with their providers. The information requested on TEC budgets for 1993–94 will therefore be publicly available on 1 October 1993.
  196

  Through flow

  Entrants

  Job entry (per cent.)

  Area

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 target

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 target

  Manchester West

  4,020

  4,560

  40

  45

  Merseyside Outer

  4,759

  5,507

  47

  46

  Total

  31,530

  35,235

  44

  46

  Office for Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Inverclyde and Argyll

  2,412

  3,339

  45

  50

  Glasgow North and Dunbarton

  3,624

  5,006

  54

  50

  Glasgow South and Renfrew

  2,768

  3,980

  54

  50

  Highlands, Islands and Grampian

  2,013

  2,231

  48

  50

  Lothian and Borders

  2,810

  3,556

  46

  50

  Lanarkshire and Central

  4,243

  4,439

  44

  50

  Tayside and Fife

  3,021

  3,745

  53

  50

  Total

  20,891

  26,296

  49

  50

  Manufacturing Sector
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the manufacturing sector in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 in(a) the north-west region, (b) Lancashire and (c) Burnley travel-to-work area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is as follows:

  Social Chapter
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what data, in regard to the effects on United Kingdom employment and wages, Her Majesty's Government made a decision to exempt the United Kingdom from the social chapter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposed social chapter would have given the Community greatly increased scope to legislate in the areas of employment and social policy and to introduce such legislation through qualified majority voting. It is already clear that inappropriate Community legislation of this kind can greatly increase the costs and burdens on business with an inevitable cost in lost jobs. To have accepted greater Community powers in this area would have been irreconcilable with the need to maintain the competitiveness of British business and the jobs of British employees.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the initiative of the CBI in trying to increase workplace nursery places.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We welcome the Employers for Childcare forum, which proposes a national child care strategy based on partnership between parents, employers and Government. The forum clearly has a valuable contribution to make to the child care debate and we are pleased that major and prestigious companies have recognised child care as an important business issue. The Government is putting £45 million into an initiative to create some 50,000 new child care places for school aged children over the next three years. Employers will have a key role to play in this initiative. We also encourage all employers to adopt family-friendly employment policies such as flexible working and help with child care. In 1990 we introduced tax relief on workplace nurseries to stimulate this type of child care.

  Unemployment, Burnley
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed in(a) the Burnley borough council area and (b) the Burnley travel-to-work area for more than one year in each of the last three years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Claimant unemployment data by duration is available quarterly for the months of January, April, July and October and can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Life Insurance Industry
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people in the United Kingdom life insurance industry who are(a) employed and (b) self-employed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is available only for the whole of the insurance industry (excluding compulsory social security). Latest estimates from the Labour Force Survey, for the United Kingdom, show that there were 277,000 employees and 10,000 self-employed people in this industry in spring 1992.

  Employment Advice
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent by the Benefits Agency in each region and in the district covering Stockport in each year since 1989–90 on contracts with organisations to provide job shops, job review workshops and advice for the unemployed on applying for employment.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 7 July 1993:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to
  198
  respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about contracted out programme expenditure. This responsibility rests with the Employment Service and not the Benefits Agency. It is something which the Secretary of State has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service (ES).

  There are a range of jobsearch and advisory programmes which are run on behalf of the ES by organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors. In the attached tables I have set out details of the programme expenditure for the main Employment Service programmes delivered by external providers for the period April 1989-March 1993. These are Restart Courses, Jobclubs, job search seminars and Job Review Workshops.

  The figures given include fares to participants. This is because people who attend programmes are re-imbursed the cost of travelling from their homes to the seminars, workshops or courses. The providers then recover this money from the Employment Service.

  A regional breakdown of figures is available for the last two years only. Table 1 therefore gives the total national expenditure on contracts for these programmes between 1989 and 1991. Tables 2 and 3 list the spend by region for 1991–92 and 1992–93. Table 4 lists the expenditure from April 1989 for the Manchester East Employment Service area, which includes Stockport. It has not been possible to separate out Jobclub and job search seminar payments.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Table 1

  Expenditure on programme contracts National totals 1989–90 and 1990–91

  £000's

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Restart courses

  6,093

  6,204

  Jobclubs

  16,455

  19,215

  Job search seminar

  Nil

  Nil

  Job Review Workshops

  Nil

  Nil

  Notes:

  Expenditure by region is not available.

  Job search seminars and Job Review Workshops commenced August 1991.

  All figures are inclusive of VAT and fares.

  Table 2

  Expenditure on programme contracts 1991–92 regional totals

  £000's

  Region

  Restart courses

  Jobclubs and Job search seminars

  Job review workshop

  Northern

  936

  2,036

  44

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  947

  2,305

  72

  East Midlands and Eastern

  873

  2,941

  69

  London and South East

  2,051

  9,538

  543

  South West

  793

  2,225

  119

  Office for Wales

  560

  1,456

  68

  West Midlands

  1,615

  3,487

  62

  North West

  1,877

  4,387

  80

  Office for Scotland

  1,277

  3,140

  80

  Total

  10,929

  31,515

  1,147

  Note:

  All figures are inclusive of VAT and fares.

  199

  Table 3

  Expenditure on programme contracts 1992–93 regional totals

  Restart courses

  Jobclubs and job search seminars

  Job review workshop

  Region

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  Northern

  725

  2,494

  109

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  746

  3,193

  299

  East Midlands and Eastern

  838

  4,091

  264

  London and South East

  2,683

  14,307

  1,633

  South West

  667

  3,479

  374

  Office for Wales

  576

  2,060

  133

  West Midlands

  1,537

  4,456

  231

  North West

  1,508

  5,908

  352

  Office for Scotland

  824

  3,647

  266

  TOTAL

  10,104

  43,635

  3,661

  Note:

  All figures are inclusive of VAT and fares.

  Table 4

  Expenditure on programme contracts Manchester East employment service area

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Restart courses

  81,208

  135,936

  206,741

  221,823

  Jobclubs and job search seminars

  263,733

  384,388

  563,245

  692,805

  Job review workshops

  Nil

  Nil

  18,662

  58,163

  Notes:

  Manchester East area covers the three metropolitan boroughs of Oldham, Rochdale and Stockport.

  Job search seminars and Job Review Workshops commenced August 1991.

  All figures are inclusive of VAT and fares.

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment (1) if he will make a statement about the assistance being provided through his Department to help defence-related industries in the Chelmsford parliamen-tary constituency to retrain staff in non-defence-related fields;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the assistance being provided by his Department to help redundant defence-related workers in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency find alternative employment in (a) defence-related and (b) non-defence-related industries.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the needs of those affected by changes in the defence industries. Through the training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service, the Department funds a broad range of programmes to help these people.

  The Government will participate fully in the new European Community KONVER initiative, designed to assist areas affected by the decline in the defence industry. Some £5 million has been allocated to the United Kingdom under the European social fund to assist through training and re-training. This assistance will be available throughout the United Kingdom without geographical restriction.
  200
  The precise allocation of these new funds is yet to be decided, but they will be directed towards those parts of the country where the need is greatest. Details of how the scheme will operate in the United Kingdom will be made available by the end of July.

DEFENCE

  Dockyards
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those dockyard facilities in the United Kingdom owned and operated by his Department, indicating the type of work undertaken and the numbers of people directly employed.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's only such facility is the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation at Portsmouth, which undertakes ship repair, maintenance and enhancement work. It employs 2,100 civilians and 550 naval personnel.

  Residential Property
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what average purchase price has been obtained for surplus Ministry housing, for one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom accommodation within the Plymouth city council area and each of the six Cornish districts, for the six-month period October 1992 to March 1993; and what were the comparable figures for the previous six months.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham are owned by his Department; and if he will publish a list of such residential properties which are currently empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant and the intended future use.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence currently owns 18 residential properties, all flats, situated in two locations in the London borough of Lewisham. Five dwellings are currently vacant. These properties have been vacant for three months awaiting new service occupants who are expected to arrive by September.

  The answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) to the hon. Member on 15 July 1992 at column 615 did not include six properties that had been incorrectly attributed to the neighbouring borough of Greenwich.

  Satellite Centre, Spain
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the progress being made by the Western European Union satellite centre at Torrejon, Spain; and what additional efforts he is making to further this project.

  Mr. Hanley
  Good progress is being made in the development of the WEU satellite centre at Torrejon. The centre has been established for a three year experimental period, and its formal inauguration, attended by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom
  201
  and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), took place in April this year. The United Kingdom contribution to the cost of the experimental phase is some £4,600,000 over three years. In addition, the United Kingdom is playing a full part in the activities of the centre. The contract for the provision of technical equipment was awarded to a United Kingdom-led consortium and the staff of the centre currently includes a number of United Kingdom personnel.

  Desert Storm Syndrome
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek information from(a) the United States authorities and (b) other sources on Desert Storm syndrome and on the effect on service men of the use of uranium-depleted shells.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department is liaising with the United States authorities and is already in receipt of United States information which indicates that depleted uranium has not caused the unexplained symptoms associated with the so called Desert Storm syndrome. As with any other possible threat to the health of service personnel, my Department continues to monitor the full range of information on the alleged syndrome from all available sources.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any correspondence from hon. Members on behalf of constituents who allege they are suffering from unexplained illnesses that they put down to their service with the armed forces in the Gulf during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am only aware of one such letter, which the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) raised as a point of order yesterday at column 185. This letter merely provided the name of a constituent and listed some of the health problems he was experiencing. There was no mention of his address or other identifying information or details of his military service or corroborating medical evidence. I have therefore written to the hon. Member for Hemsworth advising that his constituent consult his GP and that if the GP wished to refer the case to the MOD as being one where there were unexplained symptoms which could be attributable to service in the Gulf I would be more than happy to ensure that the matter was fully investigated. This advice applies to all hon. and right hon. Members who may have constituents in similar situations.

  Maralinga Nuclear Test Site
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, columns 276–77, if he has now heard from the
  202
  Australian Government in regard to the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government as to additional financial compensation for the clean-up of the Maralinga nuclear test site.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 30 June at columns 548–49.

  F3 Tornados
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 17 June,Official Report, column 1082, whether legal proceedings have now been instituted against Airwork in respect of the collateral damage to F3 Tornados; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. My Department intends to claim against Airwork for the cost of rectifying the damage for which they are responsible and other consequential costs. It would be inappropriate in present circumstances for me to say anything about potential proceedings—whether legal or arbitral—between the Secretary of State and Airwork Ltd.

  Rosyth Dockyard
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the names of the nuclear submarines and surface ships which have been refitted at the Rosyth dockyard in the last 10 years; and if he will give details of the man weeks taken to complete the refit work on each vessel.

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

  Tigerfish Torpedo
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what difficulties have arisen with respect to the development of the depth automatic test equipment required for the Tigerfish torpedo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The development of replacement auto-matic test equipment for the Tigerfish torpedo has presented a significant challenge, partly due to the difficulty of integrating the old technology of the torpedo and the associated test specification with the current technology of modern test equipment. There have been some programme delays and the Ministry of Defence is currently working with the contractor to bring the equipment into service as quickly as possible.

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

World Population
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the results achieved by their contributions to the international efforts to control world population.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, British aid is helping effectively those governments of developing countries which make population and related development their priorities. But I believe that more can and should be done to persuade others to address rapid population growth and its consequences.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in spite of what is being done by many countries, including our own, through the aid which the noble Baroness just mentioned, the world population is increasing faster than ever before? Two hundred and fifty thousand people are born every day. Does she agree that if that rate is continued by the end of the century there will be an extra 1,000 million people? Does she accept that the main causes of population increase are well known, and that what is now needed is greater political will to deal with them? Why does not this Government become the world leader on this momentous issue?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this Government have not done too badly: we have increased direct population spending by over 60 per cent. over the past four years, and have doubled the number of countries in which we now have major population programmes. But I accept that, as the world population might well triple by the end of the next century, with 95 per cent. of that increase being in the developing world, more countries have to take active participation in providing population planning, family planning advice and devices. Until some of those countries that have resisted helping in the most populous countries of the world start doing so, those of us who have already started will not make the progress that we deserve.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of promoting population control—to use the term that the noble Lord used when he asked the Question—is to promote literacy, and in particular literacy among women?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no doubt that there is a very positive correlation between women's education and a fall in the average
1386
family size. But I beg the noble Lord not to talk about "control". We must leave the choice with parents, but educate them to use that opportunity for choice. Let us have children by choice, not chance.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I greatly admired the speech that she delivered in Rio just over a year ago on precisely this subject? Does she recall that yesterday was World Population Day? Does she agree with the statement made by the United Nations that mass migration on an unprecedented scale as a result of the pressures of global over-population is set to become the human crisis of our era? Will she say something about the problems of mass migration? Are the Government aware of it in their planning on this issue?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed we are. We welcome the report of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on the state of world population. We have to extend health and family planning services, particularly to women and rural poor, because that will. not only help promote economic development but also reduce the need to migrate. People migrate in order, as they think, to get a better way of life. Frequently it brings them more misery, but that is why we have to go on helping the poor, and particularly the rural poor and women.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, while commending the Minister personally on her work within the constraints that she has, is she optimistic about the prospects for the very important: international conference which is to take place in Cairo in 1994 on population and development? Can she say, as far as she can, what role the Government are taking to promote endeavours in that conference?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we wish to see the Cairo conference on population and development in September 1994 make real progress in resolving the constraints to providing wider access to good quality family planning services. But it also needs to achieve a greater international consensus about the importance of improving women's status in society. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the education of women has a higher correlation in reducing family size than almost any other input that the donors can make.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in addition to the correlation that she mentioned, there is a close correlation between poverty and insecurity and excessive population growth; and that therefore, in the long run, the only cure for excessive population growth is to raise living standards in the third world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree entirely.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a role for the great religious leaders to open up the choice to which she referred; giving people the chance to decide on their own contribution to population control? Does she further agree that it is very encouraging to find that the Islamic religion

1387
seems to be moving towards giving that choice? Does she see any signs at all that the Roman Catholic religion will follow suit?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend will notice from the latest edition of the newspaper Population Concern that indeed the Islamic leaders are setting the path for that. I have had talks already with the Vatican and intend to have further talks—we had talks in Rio last year—about this problem. I believe that there is an understanding that the huge growth in population is something to be addressed by the Roman Catholic Church just as it must be addressed by every other religious leader too. I hope that that will happen. It is necessary for world peace.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister just said. On the surface, it might appear that there are wide differences of opinion between the Roman Catholic Church and, say, the Church of England and other Churches on the subject of contraception. But is she aware that those differences are not as great as are sometimes presumed and that what lies behind slightly diverging practical policies is a deeply held common commitment to maintaining fidelity in marriage and the integrity of family life?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely correct. The differences are about how one can persuade married parents to have children by choice and not by chance. This matter is about allowing them to make that choice in the best interests of their families as well as realising the enormous responsibility of having children. I hope very much that all Churches will take a more active role in trying to encourage people to understand the responsibilities of having children before they even have to take advice on family planning.
Lord Rea: My Lords, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned the importance of women's literacy in association with women choosing to have smaller families. Is the Minister aware that the structural adjustment programmes that have been imposed on many of the poorest countries which are in debt have resulted in a reduction in expenditure on education and health services in those countries? Does she agree that that is a deplorable situation and that it should be reversed? In any further structural adjustment, should not education services and health be strictly protected?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord to be wrong in this matter. Talking about structural adjustment with those responsible for helping economic reform in developing countries is now also very much a matter of persuading the governments of those countries to spend their resources on health and education and at the same time not wasting their money on unnecessary subsidy. That push will go on.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever may be said by the hierarchy in the
1388
Roman Catholic Church, people who work in the field find that there is a great deal of understanding (shall I say?) on the part of the priests at grass roots level?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords.

BT Share Offer
2.48 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the market in ordinary shares of British Telecommunications plc on the London and international stock exchanges ahead of the secondary offer for sale on 16th July 1993 is a "true and fair" market.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, this is a matter for the London Stock Exchange and the Securities and Investments Board.
Lord Spens: My Lords, given that the Treasury, as spelled out, I think, in Monday's Hansard, is responsible for the basis of allocation of new shares, can the Minister confirm that Treasury policy (as I think was announced by Warburg's) is and will continue to be to reward certain investing institutions with a higher allocation of shares if they purchase shares in the run-up to the secondary offer for sale? If that is the policy, can the Minister explain—at least for my benefit—why not so long ago four men went to prison and had multi-million pound fines for operating an almost exactly similar, if not identical, share support scheme?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the terms of the BT share offer are well known. They have been made perfectly clear. We believe, on the legal advice that we have, that we comply with all the financial regulations.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that only about 2.6 million people had registered by last Friday's deadline in respect of what is known as the BT3 telecommunications share sale offer and that that compares with 4.5 million new registrations for BT2, which was the last offer? I wonder whether the Minister saw the Independent on Sunday? Does he share the view there expressed that, given that BT2 was only 1.7 times over-subscribed, the lack of interest this time means that it could be a close-run thing and that the response demonstrates a weariness towards privatisation on the part of the public? Is it not perhaps a privatisation too far?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, certainly not. There are more privatisations to come, which I know the noble Lord will welcome.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, the Minister should answer the question. I asked specifically about figures and whether the Minister could confirm them. Can he do so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether it was a privatisation too far, and I

1389
replied to that question. Dealing with his other point, I do not know the figures at the present time. We must wait until the results are fully known.

Africa: Aid Policies
2.50 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their policy priorities, bilaterally and through the European Community and other multilateral organisations, to promote the economic and social recovery of Africa.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we support the development of sound economic and environmental policies; open and accountable government; respect for human rights; and programmes to help the poorest, particularly women.
Lord Judd: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that, at 290 billion US dollars, Africa's total crippling debt is now two-and-a-half times greater than in 1980? In many countries the debt outstanding exceeds the country's gross annual output. As 65 per cent. of the debt is owed to official creditors, has not the time come for decisive inter-governmental action? How high on the agenda of G7 will the matter be? What specific action is being proposed at the IMF, the World Bank and elsewhere?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the whole issue of Trinidad terms is being raised by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in Tokyo at the G7 conference. A number of Members of another place and myself had a meeting with the Prime Minister on the matter last week and I know how determined he is to ensure that full Trinidad terms are implemented as soon as possible. We are certainly pressing others to do as we have done and improve on those terms.
However, debt relief will always be linked to economic reform. We must have a policy which helps African governments to redistribute resources away from costly subsidies to much more cost-effective services, which they have not hitherto been doing. It is not only a question of relieving them of debt—willing as we are to try to get that done on a world-wide basis —but also of helping them to spend the resources that they have much more wisely.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister had an opportunity of talking with her noble friend Lady Trumpington since her return from a highly successful visit to the independence celebrations in Eritrea? Will the Government consider a special increase in the aid budget for Eritrea, bearing in mind that their university system will be based on the English language? Much of the equipment in the Port of Massawa, which was totally destroyed, is of British origin. We have the opportunity, by helping Eritreans, to show our support for an example of good government which should be a beacon for the rest of Africa.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I have more than daily conversations with my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who reported fully to me on an excellent visit that she made to Eritrea. I am looking forward to visiting Asmara this autumn and discussing with the Government of Eritrea the best ways in which we can help them to stand on their own feet, as they are determined to do, and succeed.
Lord Ennls: My Lords, when the Minister talked to the noble Baroness, did she raise the question of locusts? Does she share my concern in relation to the five-year cyclical problem of locusts, some of which are now in Eritrea and other parts of the Horn of Africa? It is said that there are billions of them simply waiting for the rains before they flood to many other parts of Africa with devastating effects on the social and economic lives of its people. Am I right in thinking that the Government have reduced almost to nil the work that they do on locust control? Can the Minister tell me what is happening?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I will do my best, though I have no specific briefing on locusts before me. Over the years we have had a number of successful locust control spraying operations, not only in East Africa but also in parts of West Africa. There are problems, particularly in Somalia and other parts of East Africa. Our own Natural Resources Institute, which keeps me informed, will no doubt give me the information the noble Lord seeks. I shall see that he receives it in writing and I shall put a copy in the Library.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government have a good record in these matters and that my question has some relationship with the Question on the Order Paper, will not the Minister agree that the good performance of her government has not been matched by some other governments which could do equally as well? They should be encouraged to emulate the good behaviour and tremendous contribution made by our Government to those poverty stricken areas.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have rarely been handed such a bouquet from the Opposition Benches. I accept that some things are going a great deal better than previously. We are able to have a good influence in the G7 and in the EC, and have managed on successive occasions to persuade other countries to follow the lead that some of my specialist advisers have given to me. But we need to spread the common sense to which the noble Lord referred; that is, to ensure that countries do not spend above their limits; that they concentrate their resources on their people in a productive way for the education of those people and in a less productive way for the numbers in their families.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, while I am happy to acknowledge the genuine concern of the noble Baroness over the problems that exist in Africa, if we exempt one or two successful African countries, is not the reality that a continuation of present policies

1391
by both the African governments and the industrialised world will completely fail to lift the great majority of people in Africa out of the slough of poverty in which they live at the present time? What is the prospect of that for the industrialised world in the future? What are the prospects of an urgent policy going much further than that proposed by the efforts of the noble Baroness even so far?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is a series of things that need to happen to help those countries which have stagnant economies to move forward. One of the most important for developing countries will be a successful conclusion of GATT and a reduction of protectionist barriers against Africa's exports. We also need to see further reform of the CAP, otherwise we shall not eliminate the subsidised disposal of agricultural surpluses on the regional market in Africa, which occasionally causes them grave problems.
That is one aspect of the situation. But I believe that Africa's aid dependency, which is already too high, must be reduced. I come back to some of my earlier answers; that is, we need to encourage those countries to have policies supportive of private enterprise, to eliminate corruption and to improve the quality of their public services. We concentrate on doing all those things through our aid programme.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that, while she is absolutely right to emphasise the fundamental priority of good governance in the countries themselves, her answer to both this question and the previous question on population, illustrate that the overseas aid and development programme of this Government must continue to be a priority? Can she assure the House that she will gain an increase in resources for that programme in the year ahead?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that I will not give him any such assurance. However, I can assure him that Britain is obtaining better value for money out of its bilateral aid programme than many other countries. I shall work unceasingly to make sure that that improves and that we obtain better value for money for both the British taxpayer and the recipients in the developing countries from our multilateral aid programme, which does not have the same quality standard as do many bilateral programmes.

Straw: Alternative Uses
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in research into alternative uses for straw.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, government-backed research continues to support the development of technology permitting novel uses and more efficient methods of straw disposal. The Government plan to spend £1.9 million in the current
1392
year, of which £0.5 million is our contribution to the LINK scheme which aims to bridge the gap between science and industry.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I note that the amount spent on research has increased since the last time I asked the Question. Does the Minister agree that, since 29th June when new regulations came into force which will prohibit the burning of straw other than in a few exceptional circumstances, it has become even more important that farmers should have an alternative market open to them? Can he give some idea of the areas which are at present being explored?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, overall government expenditure has increased substantially since 1991. Emphasis is now moving away from techniques of straw incorporation, which have been well researched, towards the development of alternative uses. The LINK programme, launched in 1990 in partnership with industry, is making a valuable contribution. It is planned to run for five years. There are currently 14 projects, of which six include uses of straw. These cover such diverse possibilities as uses to replace synthetic fibres and inclusion in the manufacture of thermoplastics.
Lord Alport: My Lords, while I warmly welcome the Government's decision to ban straw and stubble burning, is the Minister aware that in many parts of East Anglia crops of linseed are now grown? As the residue of linseed can now be burnt, we shall be in practically the same position as we were before the Government introduced the ban on straw and stubble burning.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, when the intention to ban was announced in 1989, research programmes were already well established. The results have assisted farmers as they have moved away from the practice of burning. The research programme has been refined and developed to meet new needs, including the investigation of alternative uses by industry. We are also now investigating problems, as the noble Lord suggests, with the incorporation of linseed residues.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the research undertaken and the experiments carried out, using bales of straw on still waters and lakes, to combat the growth and spread of algal bloom? If so, with what result?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I think that I answered a similar Question two years ago, also in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The Answer was that the research was going very well then, and I believe it still is.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us something about the exemptions which will be granted, where there is no easy alternative to stubble burning? Apparently the regulations do not make it clear when the exemptions will be given. Can he tell us a little more about it?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I have already suggested, in the main the reference is to linseed. However, there will be exemptions in particularly difficult areas which will remain under the old rules prior to the ban coming into force.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as long ago as the 1950s and 1960s there was a factory in Stowmarket which successfully produced chipboard out of straw? Can he tell the House whether there has been any development in that line?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not know about the specific example which the noble Baroness put forward. All I can say is that I referred to the LINK scheme which aims to accelerate the exploitation of technology and to bridge the gap between science and the market place. It funds collaborative research between industry and academia. As I said, six technical projects are currently being financed.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, what percentage of grant aid can be offered to those anxious to proceed with straw processing plants in rural areas? Could the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be asked to stimulate bank and private funding when it is proven that chipboard and, more especially, plywood can be manufactured more competitively against imports?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, until September 1992 grants of up to 25 per cent. were available under EC Regulation 866/90 for capital investment in projects aimed at improving the marketing and processing of agricultural produce, including straw. This scheme is now closed and we await proposals for its replacement. Manufacturers in eligible areas may also apply for assistance under the regional selective assistance scheme.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the problem of disposing of straw effectively is not confined to this country? Can he tell us what work is being done in the European Community in this regard and to what extent we are collaborating in it?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I know that Denmark introduced a ban in 1990 and that there is little burning both in Germany and in the Paris basin. Most other member states have local bans.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I believe he must be—that the reason for the surplus of straw is the imbalance that we have created in agriculture over the past 40 or 50 years? If we were to go back to the balance of stock on the farm that used to consume all the straw, that would be the right thing to do and we should have better countryside and better farming.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Lord. From a personal point of view, I do exactly as he suggests.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether it is intended to monitor soil fertility after the ban on stubble burning has been in existence for a number of years? Does he: agree that, if soil fertility declines and is compensated for by the use of chemicals, some of the environmental benefits of the ban on burning will be lost?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, government research suggests that the breakdown of straw organic matter, though requiring nitrogen within the natural nitrogen cycle of the soil, will not require additional fertiliser and nitrogen to be applied to maintain crop yields. In the long term, improvements in soil structure are possible, as has already been noticed by some farmers. Where straw is baled instead of being burnt, additional phosphate and potash will be required to maintain soil fertility. The amount will be dependent on crop yield and soil type and the present fertility.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that the reason why mainland Europe does not have quite the same problem is that, as my noble friend Lord John-Mackie suggested, on the whole they have kept more mixed farming than we have? Does the Minister agree that we should return to it if possible?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, again I do not disagree with the noble Baroness. The ban on straw-burning was introduced because in 1989 alone there were 3,500 complaints from the public.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Railways Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. and that during this adjournment the one-hour Unstarred Question in the name of my noble friend Lady Sharpies will be taken. Following the recent agreement by the House to this new procedure for time-limiting dinner break Unstarred Questions, the maximum time for each speaker will be five minutes, save for the opener, who is allowed 10 minutes, and the Minister, who is allowed 12 minutes.

Crofters (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Land Court Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways Bill
3.9 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may make two points in relation to the Motion. First, I thank the Government for helpfully sending to Opposition spokesmen the Notes on the Amendments which they propose to raise. I find them very helpful, as do my colleagues. The second point is whether the Government have had any further thoughts about their defeat in the House the other day on the ability of British Rail to enter the franchising stakes.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his remarks about the notes. As regards the second point, the position is exactly as my noble friend Lord Caithness set it out the last time that we discussed this matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may point out that we have now moved on two days. Is the Minister unable to indicate to the House whether the Government have had any further thoughts since then?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I believe a number of people in this House will think that the Government, when asked to reconsider a matter by this House, should not jump to any quick conclusions. The Minister made it quite clear that he would give consideration to these matters. That is the position, and that will remain for some time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 32 [Proposals to discontinue non franchised etc. passenger services]:
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe) moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 39, line 17, leave out ("any services in the case of which") and insert ("those whose provision").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, in moving Amendment No. 70A, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to
1396
Amendments Nos. 70B to 70E inclusive; Amendments Nos. 71A, 77B, 77C, 83A, 84A to 84H inclusive; Amendments Nos. 89A, 90A, 90B, 118A and 124A.
This grouping of amendments is not as daunting as it looks. The main amendments are Amendments Nos. 84F and 90B. The remaining amendments are mainly drafting or consequential. Amendment No. 84F sets out the closure procedure to be followed where a passenger network is being operated on behalf of the franchising director (for example, following the refusal of a previous closure proposal) and the franchising director wishes to discontinue that operation.
That circumstance is not covered by Clause 34 which allows only for circumstances where the network operator takes the initiative. Without the provisions of Amendment No. 84F, such a network could not be closed. The closure procedures follow closely those in Clause 34, amended to reflect that it is the franchising director taking the initiative.
Amendment No. 90B makes equivalent provision as regards facilities (that is to say, stations and light maintenance depots) operated on behalf of the franchising director, and for the same reasons. Another noteworthy amendment is Amendment No. 84E. That amends the definition of minor closures contained in Clause 34. Minor closures are exempt from the closure procedures. The amendment provides that any part of a network other than track which, in the opinion of the regulator, is not necessary for the network to be used for passenger services, is a minor closure. That will enable insignificant parts of the network, such as a redundant signal box, to be closed without going through the full closure procedure.
I shall not weary your Lordships by taking the Committee through the remaining amendments in the group line by line. However, I can assure the Committee that the remaining amendments are clarificatory, drafting or consequential and that they do improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: It was only towards the end of the Minister's remarks that he provoked me into rising to speak when he mentioned the possible closure of redundant signal boxes. Is it within the noble Earl's memory that the late Robert Adley fought a tremendous campaign in another place to retain redundant signal boxes that, surprisingly to me, had been designated listed buildings? As I understand it, there is a fairly substantial number of fairly old signal boxes which are in effect redundant but which are listed buildings and for that reason cannot be disposed of, demolished or anything of that kind. Against the background of the late Robert Adley's campaign on this question, I ask the Minister for an assurance that the redundant signal boxes which are listed buildings will not be affected by what the noble Earl has just said.
Earl Howe: I point out to the noble Lord that a closure is not the same as demolition. Clearly, if there is a listed signal box involved proper planning considerations will be taken into account on every occasion.

1397
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 70B to 70F:
Page 39, line 17, after ("duty") insert ("to secure").
Page 39, line 20, leave out second ("or").
Page 39, line 21, at end insert ("or.
Page 39, leave out line 22

(d) any closure condition imposed under section 36(7) or 37(2) below,").

Page 39, line 23, leave out subsection (II).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 70G:
After Clause 32. insert the following new clause:
("Temporary suspension of rail services
—(1) In any circumstance which requires any railway passenger service to be suspended due to external or unforeseen circumstances, and a substitute rail service over an alternative line, or a substitute bus service is provided, it shall be the duty of the Regulator, Franchising Director, Franchise Operator and the Board, as necessary in each case, to cooperate together to ensure that—

(a) the substitute rail or bus service connects, as far as is reasonably possible, with its timetabled connections, and

(b) the temporarily suspended rail service shall be reinstated at the earliest practical time.

(2) In this section "external or unforeseen circustances" means damage to track or other infrastructure due to storm, flood or other natural disaster, or the declaration by the appropriate authority of the track or other infrastructure to be unsafe for the carrying of passenger services.").
The noble Lord said: I fully accept responsibility for the fact that the wording of this amendment may not be the most suitable, but it was the best I could do to convey a fear which has been expressed by many people that there could be a reluctance by responsible authorities to make repairs to structures which become damaged to an extent that the rail service may require to be temporarily suspended.
The transparent subsidy for each line may lead to the temptation to propose that the line should be closed rather than to make the necessary repairs or alternatively to delay them until a future year's budget. That would cause a number of problems. Traffic would be lost during that period and people would find other ways of travelling. As regards matters of heavy engineering of this kind, unless repairs are done fairly quickly they become much more expensive in the following years. So it is a case of a stitch in time which may very well save a great deal of trouble. An amendment along the lines I have suggested would put a clear duty on all involved on a particular line to reinstate the rail service as quickly as possible.
I have said that I am aware that the wording of this amendment is not perfect; but I hope the idea may commend itself to the Government, and that they may see that there is a fair amount of logic in it. I hope that they will be able to find words which are more appropriate to complete the idea of making repairs and making sure that the line does not fall into disuse, which would cause a loss of traffic because of repairs not being done. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I believe that I can be reassuring in part to the noble Lord although perhaps not in the way that he has suggested in that I have no difficulty with the intent of the amendment. For example, where a railway bridge is washed away, I agree with the noble Lord that everything possible must be done to restore the bridge and to cater for passengers' travel needs in the meantime.
In future, responsibility for the infrastructure will rest with Railtrack. Train operators will have rights of access through their access agreement with Railtrack —in other words, those rights of access will be underpinned by a binding legal agreement. If, for whatever reason, a particular piece of infrastructure is temporarily unavailable to train operators. then the responsibility to restore the position rests primarily with the infrastructure operator. The onus should be on them to make available and/or to pay for any interim measures to ensure that operators can offer passengers alternative services.
I am sure that the Committee appreciates that it is impossible to put on the face of the Bill detailed arrangements to deal with every possible contingency which may occur on the railways in future. This is a case in point. These are detailed matters which are properly for the access agreement—in other words, the legal contract —and not the Bill. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment with the comfort of the general reassurance which I have been able to give him.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am pleased that the Minister has come to grips with the idea that was put forward in the amendment. We shall need to consider this matter in some detail to understand what responsibilities Railtrack will have and to consider whether Railtrack and the franchisee could find a good reason for not doing any repairs—either a financial reason or because of alterations in the sort of traffic that will use the line. Alternative ways may be suggested by the licensee. We have been trying to ensure that repairs should be carried out as quickly as possible on temporary suspensions and that. they should not be held up because of a lack of funds. The cost of such repairs should not be added to the budget for the following year because that would perhaps cost a great deal more. As the Minister has come at least half way, for which I thank him, I shall take the amendment away and for now, I beg. leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Proposals to discontinue franchised etc. passenger services]:
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 71A:
Page 39, leave out lines 45 to 48 and insert:
("and any reference in this section to a closure is a reference to a discontinuance falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(1A) If in a case where this section applies—

(a) the closure is certified by the Regulator as being a minor closure, or

(b) the services in question are designated, or are of a class or description designated, by order under section 42(2) below as services in relation to which section 32 above and this section are not to have effect,

1399
the Franchising Director may discontinue the services, notwithstanding any duty imposed upon him by or under this Part to secure their provision, and subsections (3) and (4) below shall not apply in relation to the closure.

The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 71B and 71C:
Page 40, line 7, at end insert ("or which are provided on an experimental basis, for the purposes of section 56A of the Transport Act 1962;").
Page 40, line 10, after ("designated") insert ("or which are of a class or description designated").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 76 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 76A and 76B:
Page 40, line 30, leave out ("national") and insert ("local").
Page 41, line 1, at end insert:
(""the area affected" means the area in which is situated the station or, as the case may be the, line mentioned in subsection (1) above;").
The noble Earl said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. MA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 77A:
Page 41, line 24, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 64A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Notification of proposals to close operational passenger networks]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 77B and 77C:
Page 41, line 34, leave out ("and").
Page 41, line 38, at end insert ("and
(c) the network or, as the case may be, the part of the network in question is not one which is operated on behalf of the Franchising Director,").
The noble Earl said: These amendments were spoken to earlier with Amendment No. 70A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 78A:
Page 41, line 44, at end insert:
("(1A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) (b) above whether the network or, as the case may be, the part of the network in question has at any time within the period there mentioned been used for or in connection with the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by railway, there shall be left out of account any use for or in connection with the provision of services—

(a) which involve travel through the Channel Tunnel;

(b) which are experimental passenger services, within the meaning of section 41 below, or which are provided on an experimental basis, for the purposes of section 56A of the Transport Act 1962; or

(c) which are provided otherwise than as regular scheduled services on that network or, as the case may be, the part of the network in question;

and this section shall not have effect in relation to any networks which are designated, or which are of a class or description designated, by order under section 42(4) below as networks in relation to which this section is not to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to earlier with Amendment No. 62A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 42, line 37, leave out ("any subsequent application of this section") and insert ("the provisions of section (Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director) below").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 70A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 84A to 84E:
Page 43, line 15, after second ("or') insert ("(a)").
Page 43, line 16, after ("network") insert ("which consists of a stretch of track, or ancillary facilities associated with a stretch of track,").
Page 43, line 19, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").
Page 43, line 22, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").
Page 43, line 25, at end insert ("or

(b) any part of a network (other than track) which, in the opinion of the Regulator, is not necessary for the use of the network for or in connection with the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by railway.

(8A) The networks, and the parts of networks, which are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as operated on behalf of the Franchising Director are those whose operation he is for the time being under a duty to secure, in consequence of—

(a) subsection (4) or (7) (a) above,

(b) section (Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)(5)(a) below, or

(c) any closure condition imposed under section 36(7) or 37(2) below.").

The noble Earl said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 70A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 84F:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause: Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director
(" .—(I) This section applies in any case where—

(a) a network or a part of a network is operated on behalf of the Franchising Director; and

(b) the Franchising Director proposes to discontinue the operation of the network or, as the case may be, the part of the network in question (in this section referred to as a "closure").

(2) If in a case where this section applies—

(a) the closure is certified by the Regulator as being a minor closure,

(b) the network or, as the case may be, the part of the network in question has at no time within the preceding five years been used for or in connection with the provision of any services for the carriage of passengers by railway, or

(c) the network in question is one of those which are designated, or which are of a class or description designated, by order under section 42(4) below as networks in relation to which section 34 above is not to have effect,

the Franchising Director may discontinue the operation of the network or, as the case may be, the part of the network in question, notwithstanding any duty imposed upon him by or under this Part to secure its operation, and subsections (4) and (5) below shall not apply in relation to the closure.

1401
(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above whether the network or, as the case may be, the part of the network in question has at any time within the period there mentioned been used for or in connection with the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by railway, there shall be left out of account any use for or in connection with the provision of services—

(a) which involve travel through the Channel Tunnel;

(b) which are experimental passenger services, within the meaning of section 41 below, or which are provided on an experimental basis, for the purposes of section 56A of the Transport Act 1962; or

(c) which are provided otherwise than as regular scheduled services on that network or, as the case may be, the part of the network in question.

(4) Subject to subsection (2) above, where this section applies, the Franchising Director shall publish in two successive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in the area affected and in two national newspapers, and in such other manner as appears to him to be appropriate, a notice containing—

(a) particulars of the proposal to effect the closure,

(b) the date on which it is proposed that the closure will take effect,

(c) particulars of any alternative transport services which appear to him to be available,

(d) the addresses of the premises at which a statement of the reasons for the proposed closure can be inspected, or from which a copy of that statement can be obtained, and any fees payable for copies of the statement,

(e) a statement that objections to the proposed closure may be lodged with the Regulator within such period as may be specified for the purpose in the notice (being not less than six weeks from the date of the last publication of the notice in a local newspaper),

and shall be under a duty during the interim period to secure the operation of the network or, as the case may be, the part of the network to which the proposed closure relates.
(5) Subject to subsection (2) above and without prejudice to any subsequent application of this section in relation to the network or the part of the network in question—

(a) if the final decision on the closure question is that the proposed closure will not be allowed to take effect, the Franchising Director shall be under a duty to secure the operation of the network or, as the case may be, the part of the network after the interim period; and

(b) if the final decision on the closure question is that the proposed closure will be allowed to take effect subject to compliance with conditions, the Franchising Director shall be under a duty to comply with those conditions or to secure that they are complied with.

(6) In this section—
"the area affected" means the area in which is situated the network or, as the case may be, the part of the network in question;
"the final decision on the closure question" means—

(a) in a case where the decision of the Regulator under section 36(7) below with respect to the proposed closure is not referred to the Secretary of State under section 37 below, that decision; or

(b) in a case where that decision is referred to the Secretary of State under section 37 below, the disposal of that reference by the Secretary of State;

"the interim period" means the period beginning with the date mentioned in subsection (4)(b) above and ending four weeks after the date of the final decision on the closure question;
"minor closure" has the same meaning as it has in section 34 above.
(7) The networks and parts of networks that are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as operated on behalf of the Franchising Director are the same networks and parts of networks as are to be so regarded for the purposes of section 34 above.
(8) Any sums received by the Franchising Director under this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 70A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Notification of proposals to close railway facilities used in connection with passenger services]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 84G and 84H:
Page 43, line 32, leave out ("and").
Page 43, line 36, at end insert ("and

(c) the relevant facility or, as the case may be, the part of the relevant facility in question is not one which is operated on behalf of the Franchising Director,").

The noble Earl said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 70A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 84J:
Page 43, line 43, at end insert:
("(IA) In determining for the purposes of subsection (I)(b) above whether the relevant facility or, as the case may be, the part of the relevant facility in question has; At any time within the period there mentioned been used in connection with the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by railway, there shall be left out of account any use in connection with the provision of services—

(a) which involve travel through the Channel Tunnel;

(b) which are experimental passenger services, within the meaning of section 41 below, or which are provided on an experimental basis, for the purposes of section 56A of the Transport Act 1962; or

(c) which are provided otherwise than as regular scheduled services;

and this section shall not have effect in relation to any stations or light maintenance depots which are designated, or which are of a class or description designated, by order under section 42(5) below as stations or light maintenance depots in relation to which this section is not to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken with Amendment No. 62A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 44, line 21, after ("appear") insert ("to him").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 64A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 44, line 41, leave out ("any subsequent application of this section") and insert ("the provisions of section (Proposals to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director) below").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 70A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 45, line 33, at end Insert:
("(8A) The stations and light maintenance depots, and the parts of stations or light maintenance depots, which are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as operated on behalf of the Franchising Director are those whose operation he is for the time being under a duty to secure, in consequence of—

(a) subsection (4) or (7) (a) above,

1403

(b) section (Proposals to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)(5) (a) below, or

(c) any closure condition imposed under section 36(7) or 37(2) below.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to earlier with Amendment No. 70A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90A A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 90B:
Insert the following new clause:
Proposals to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director
(" .—(I) This section applies in any case where—

(a) the whole or some part of a station or light maintenance depot ("the relevant facility") is operated on behalf of the Franchising Director; and

(b) the Franchising Director proposes to discontinue the operation of the relevant facility or of some part of the relevant facility (in this section referred to as a "closure").

(2) If in a case where this section applies—

(a) the closure is certified by the Regulator as being a minor closure,

(b) the relevant facility or, as the case may be, the part of the relevant facility in question has at no time within the preceding five years been used in connection with the provision of any services for the carriage of passengers by railway, or

(c) the relevant facility is, or is part of, one of those stations or light maintenance depots which are designated, or which are of a class or description designated, by order under section 42(5) below as stations or light maintenance depots in relation to which section 35 above is not to have effect,

the Franchising Director may discontinue the operation of the relevant facility or, as the case may be, the part of the relevant facility in question, notwithstanding any duty imposed upon him by or under this Part to secure its operation, and subsections (4) and (5) below shall not apply in relation to the closure.
(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above whether the relevant facility or, as the case may be, the part of the relevant facility in question has at any time within the period there mentioned been used in connection with the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by railway, there shall be left out of account any use in connection with the provision of services—

(a) which involve travel through the Channel Tunnel;

(b) which are experimental passenger services, within the meaning of section 41 below, or which are provided on an experimental basis, for the purposes of section 56A of the Transport Act 1962; or

(c) which are provided otherwise than as regular scheduled services.

(4) Subject to subsection (2) above, where this section applies, the Franchising Director shall publish in two successive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in the area affected and in two national newspapers, and in such other manner as appears to him to be appropriate, a notice containing—

(a) particulars of the proposal to effect the closure,

(b) the date on which it is proposed that the closure will take effect,

(c) particulars of any alternative facilities which appear to him to be available for the provision of services corresponding to those provided by means of the relevant facility or, as the case may be, the part of the relevant facility in question,

(d) the addresses of the premises at which a statement of the reasons for the proposed closure can be inspected, or from which a copy of that statement can be obtained, and any fees payable for copies of the statement,

1404

(e) a statement that objections to the proposed closure may be lodged with the Regulator within such period as may be specified for the purpose in the notice (being not less than six weeks from the date of the last publication of the notice in a local newspaper),

and shall be under a duty during the interim period to secure the operation of the relevant facility or, as the case may be, the part of the relevant facility to which the proposed closure relates.
(5) Subject to subsection (2) above and without prejudice to any subsequent application of this section in relation to the relevant facility or the part of the relevant facility in question—

(a) if the final decision on the closure question is that the proposed closure will not be allowed to take effect, the Franchising Director shall be under a duty to secure the operation of the relevant facility or, as the case may be, the part of the relevant facility after the interim period; and

(b) if the final decision on the closure question is that the proposed closure will be allowed to take effect subject to compliance with conditions, the Franchising Director shall be under a duty to comply with those conditions or to secure that they are complied with.

(6) In this section—
"the area affected" means the area in which is situated the relevant facility or, as the case may be, the part of the relevant facility in question;
"the final decision on the closure question" means—

(a) in a case where the decision of the Regulator under section 36(7) below with respect to the proposed closure is not referred to the Secretary of State under section 37 below, that decision; or

(b) in a case where that decision is referred to the Secretary of State under section 37 below, the disposal of that reference by the Secretary of State;

"the interim period" means the period beginning with the date mentioned in subsection (4) (b) above and ending four weeks after the date of the final decision on the closure question;
"minor closure" has the same meaning as it has in section 35 above.
(7) The stations and light maintenance depots and the parts of stations and light maintenance depots that are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as operated on behalf of the Franchising Director are the same stations and light maintenance depots and parts of stations and light maintenance depots as are to be so regarded for the purposes of section 35 above.
(8) Any sums received by the Franchising Director under this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.").
The noble Earl said: Again, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 70A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Notification to, and functions of, the Regulator and the relevant consultative committees]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 90C:
Page 45, line 37, after (" 35") insert ("(Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director) and (Proposals to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 90C, with the leave of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 90D and 124B. I can be brief in introducing the government amendments, although I shall obviously wish to comment on the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, once she has spoken to them.
Amendment No. 90D has a simple purpose. It provides that the regulator shall send to appropriate

1405
railway users consultative committees copies of objections to a closure proposal so as to enable them to report to him on cases of hardship. Amendments Nos. 90C and 124B are purely technical and consequential. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman: I, too, should like to thank the Minister for the Notes on Clauses and for the amendments. I accept that some of them have gone some way towards meeting some of the points that I raised earlier. That is the case with Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 in this grouping which have been rather superseded by Amendments Nos. 90C and 90D. Perhaps I may refer in the first instance, therefore, to Amendments Nos. 93 to 96 which make rather wider points than the Minister's existing amendments. I should like to explain them to him and to ask him to consider them before we reach the next stage in our consideration of the Bill. I hope that he will be able to take them on board.
Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 have now been superseded. Turning to Amendment No. 93, the RUCC will receive from the regulator copies of objections in a particular closure case and will be obliged to consider them. The objections which the RUCC will be obliged to consider will have been lodged in accordance with Clauses 32 to 35, which do not in any way limit the grounds on which an objection may be lodged. Therefore, an RUCC would receive, and be obliged to consider, copies of objections on any grounds. Having been obliged to receive and consider the objections and the issues raised in them, is it not logical that the RUCC should address the substance to the whole range of objections when it prepares its report?
Clause 36(2) (c) appears to limit the scope of the RUCC's report to the regulator to two aspects: hardship and alleviation. Amendment No. 93 would require the consultative committees to report on hardship and alleviation, but would not prevent them from reporting on other matters raised by the objections. That would replicate closely the existing arrangements whereby it is accepted by government and British Rail, in a tripartite agreement, that the TUCCs may include matters other than hardship in their reports to the Secretary of State.
On Amendment No. 94, the Bill, again, makes no provision for copies of the RUCC's closure report to be sent to the central committee which, by virtue of an earlier clause, may investigate matters relating to the effects of the discontinuance of services generally, to the efficacy of procedures relating to such discontinuances, or to the franchising director who made the closure proposal to which the report relates. The Bill is also silent about whether RUCC closure reports may be published. It is current practice for those closures reports to be published when the Secretary of State announces his decision. In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, it is understood that the regulator may be able to insist that the RUCC's report is made in confidence to him and that he should himself publish a report at his own discretion. Such a development would be a step backwards from open government, and the amendment would help prevent that.
1406
Amendment No. 95 seeks to define the nature of a public hearing in this context. It is to hear objectors orally or to hear oral representations made on behalf of the franchising director. The presence of the franchising director's representative will be important to the consultative committee in helping it to understand the case for closure and answering questions raised by the consultative committee at the hearing. Many of those questions may be prompted by objectors' contributions. British Rail undertakes that role under the present arrangements and is invariably represented at the consultative committee hearings, but there is no compulsion upon British Rail to attend, as there will be no compulsion on the franchising director under the amendment.
The present Act specifically provides. for the possibility, of British Rail's attendance at closure hearings. The Bill makes no such provision in relation to the franchising director. That provision might be helpful. It also removes the need for a consultative committee to consult the regulator before holding a public hearing, although by virtue of Clause 36(4) before deciding whether to hold a public hearing the consultative committee will still be obliged to take account of such matters as may be notified to it by the regulator.
Amendment No. 96 deals with the existing closure procedures which require two or more consultative committees concerned with a closure proposal to decide whether they will report jointly or through the committee principally concerned. The Bill could be interpreted as requiring each consultative committee to report independently to the regulator. That could lead to him being given different advice by the consultative committees concerned. The amendment proposed seeks to ensure that the objectors are represented in just one report.
On Amendments Nos. 97, 99 and 100, we are dealing with the timescale of the closure procedure. There is no objection in principle to the imposition of timescales, but they have to be reasonable. The period of 12 weeks for the preparation by the consultative committee of its report is totally unrealistic in regard to a major closure proposal which may attract many thousands of objections. Even if the regulator allows the consultative committee more time, the whole process is governed by the period of 26 weeks, extensible to 52 weeks with the consent of the Secretary of State. There has to be more flexibility to extend the time limits. The Settle-Carlisle closure proposal in the late 1980s took over four years from beginning to end. It would be impossible for a consultative committee, with its unpaid, part-time members, and tiny secretariat, to read, consider and analyse the 22,000 objections which were made to that proposal, let alone hold public hearings spread over several weeks in several locations, and then prepare a detailed report within the timescales laid down by the Bill.
The amendment would mean that we could have more reasonable timescales. There would then be every prospect that the consultative committee, the regulator or the Secretary of State—if they did not follow the procedure—would lay themselves open to a

1407
judicial review if there was any evidence that they were unable to discharge their duties properly and fully because of restrictive timescales.
Amendment No. 98 requires the regulator to have regard to a number of matters when deciding whether to allow the proposed closure procedure to take place. Under the present procedures, when making such a decision the Secretary of State has to,
"have regard to any matters which for the time being appear to him to be relevant, including any social or economic considerations".
That guidance is laid down in Clause 54 of the Transport Act 1968, but has not been replicated in the Bill. The amendment seeks merely to relate to that and to rectify it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support the observations made by the noble Baroness. They are important. I was proposing to raise a number of matters on clause stand part, but it is more convenient to do so now. To impose a duty on the consultative committees to have regard, on the basis of information available to them, to the value for money of any such measures, is to impose an enormous task upon them. It is a task that they have not previously been expected to fulfil.
The Government must spell out in rather more detail than has been the case up until now how, in their view, the committees are expected to undertake their tasks: what sort of evidence will they be expected to hear? If they are expected to have regard to that criterion (the value for money of any such measures), why should they not equally have regard to the wider considerations to which the noble Baroness referred —that is, the wider social and economic considerations? More than that, why should they not be considering the environmental considerations of a proposed closure? After all, it may be that there is no other way of doing it, because it is conceivable that some of the closures may not be subject to the environmental impact assessment procedures required by the directive and the relevant Act.
Consequently, I should like to hear from the Government how they believe those environmental matters can be properly considered in the context of a proposed closure. It is odd that in a narrow remit the committee should be restricted to considering the criterion of relieving the hardship of a proposed closure. I should also like to know who studies the wider implications of closure which go beyond the remits of the consultative committees. I have already referred to the implications for the environment, but there is also the impact of the cost of the increased road traffic that will follow. That is a matter that will fall to be dealt with in the wider duties of a consultative committee, which the noble Baroness is urging, and which I, too, am urging. Someone should be giving consideration to that point at a local level, or where a more major closure is being considered.
So who considers these wider transport issues? How will it impact on the general desirability of maintaining a rail link, because it fits in with broader transport issues? Specifically, what criteria are to be followed in these deliberations?
Earl Howe: I wish to begin by considering the amendments in the group which concern the role of the consumer committees—the RUCCs—in the closure procedure. Amendment No. 94 provides for the RUCCs' reports to the regulator also to be sent to the CRUCC and to the franchising director and permits the RUCCs to publish those reports. I understand that at present the TUCCs make available their report once a final decision has been reached.
I have no difficulty with that idea, nor any desire to see the practice changed. For that reason I should like to take the amendment away and consider it before a later stage. I am a little uncertain about the drafting of the amendment but I shall be happy to consider it with the noble Baroness.
However, I am not so sympathetic to the other amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, which relate to the committees' role in the closure procedures. Amendment No. 91 has much the same effect as the Government's Amendment No. 90D in providing that the regulator shall send to the appropriate RUCCs copies of objections to a closure proposal so as to enable them to report to him on hardship. Not surprisingly, I commend the Government's Amendment No. 90D to the Committee and I hope that the noble Baroness will be content with that.
Amendment No. 92 would require the RUCCs to consider those objections. I do not believe that it is necessary to spell that out in the Bill. What else should the RUCCs do with them other than consider them?
Amendment No. 95 requires that any hearing an RUCC may elect to hold shall be held in public. Again, I do not believe that that needs to be stipulated in the Bill. The matter can be safely left to the RUCCs. I am sure that in practice the presumption will be that such hearings are held in public.
Amendment No. 96 would permit RUCCs to report jointly or to agree that one should take the lead where the area affected by a proposed closure covers the area of more than one RUCC. Again, I do not believe that it is necessary to make specific provision for that. The Bill provides that every RUCC whose area includes areas affected by the proposed closure shall receive copies of the franchising director's notice. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that RUCCs should not collaborate where a closure proposal straddles the boundary of two or more RUCCs.
Amendment No. 98 would require the regulator, before deciding whether to allow a proposed closure to take effect, to consider wider economic and social considerations. The amendment would add nothing of substance to the requirements already implicitly placed on the regulator by the Bill as drafted. In the absence of any qualification to the contrary, he must take into account all relevant matters in reaching his decision. Economic and social considerations will invariably be relevant to a greater or lesser degree when considering a closure. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree, therefore, that Amendment No. 98 is unnecessary.
The remaining amendments in the grouping aim to extend the periods within which the RUCC must make its reports to the regulator about hardship and

1409
the period within which the regulator must make his decision on the closure proposal. In my view, 12 weeks ought to be sufficient time for the RUCC to report in the majority of instances. However, I accept that there will be more difficult cases. For that reason, the 12-week period is extensible by the regulator within the overall time limit. There are 26 weeks for the regulator to make his decision and that is extensible up to 52 weeks on application to the Secretary of State.
It would be difficult to justify a longer period of consideration of a closure. We must think of the passenger whose service is hanging in the balance. The public would be entitled to criticise an inability to come to a decision within a year. If a particularly difficult case arises, with a large number of objections to he considered, the RUCC must be resourced accordingly. That, rather than allowing for an indefinite prolongation of the matter, as I believe would be the potential effect of Amendment No. 100, is, I am sure, the way to tackle the matter.
I hope that in the light of what I have said, and my commitment to correspond with the noble Baroness on Amendment No. 94, she will not press her amendment and that the Committee will approve the Government's Amendment No. 90D together with the technical consequential amendments which were spoken to earlier.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: The Minister said that if an extension were required it could be achieved up to 52 weeks, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Why does the matter have to go to the Secretary of State? Why cannot the regulator, who plays an important role in this, make his own judgment? I should have thought that that would save a good deal of time, knowing how long it takes for consultations to arise. If the object is to obtain speed and efficiency, I believe that it would be best to leave the matter to the regulator to agree to an extension if in his view that is required. Why is it necessary for the matter to go to the Secretary of State?
Earl Howe: Essentially, the reason is that it would be wrong to signal in the Bill that a 52-week period, or any period longer than that, should be the norm. In the majority of cases it should be incumbent on the regulator to reach a decision within a reasonable timescale. I do not see that a referral to the Secretary of State should necessarily lead to delay. If the regulator foresees the need for a longer period of consideration he will no doubt be aware of that in good time and can approach the Secretary of State accordingly. Therefore, I do not see that there is any difficulty.
Lord Shepherd: The Minister may be right as regards delay but there is bound to be a degree of uncertainty about the granting of an extension.
Earl Howe: That is why I believe the norm should be as enshrined in the Bill. There would be greater uncertainty if the Bill specified a longer period as being within the power of the regulator to approve. That is essentially the reason.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I believe that the Minister has overlooked in his reply the points that I raised. I am sure that he did not do so deliberately. I asked why the criterion about value for money is imposed upon the committee when the wider considerations to which the noble Baroness referred and the question of the environment, albeit in a limited way, are not also spelt out. Once one spells out that criterion one is giving emphasis to it. The Minister said that it is all right because an implicit duty is placed on the regulator to deal with all relevant matters. That in itself is extremely vague and gives little, if any, guidance to the regulator.
I fear that I must repeat the question. What happens to the environmental issues which are not touched by the environmental impact assessment? Who will deal with that? Will it be the regulator or the committee? If it is no one apart from the Secretary of State, perhaps the matter should be referred to in the Bill.
Earl Howe: I apologise to the noble Lord for not answering his questions in my initial reply. The RUCCs are obliged to take into account value for money considerations only to the extent that they are able to do so. They must use their best endeavours arid no one expects more than that. It is not intended to be an onerous duty on them. The wider environmental and transport considerations are to be considered by the regulator. He must consider all the relevant circumstances of the case in line with his general duties in Clause 4, especially subsection (3)(b). I hope that that will be of assistance. The reason why it is not specifically laid out in the Bill is that once a particular aspect of a certain individual's duties is emphasised, that is done at the expense of others. As I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, the convention in legislation is not to highlight any particular aspects but to refer in general terms to the duties laid upon an individual.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Precisely. That is why one could have a similar provision in relation to those wider considerations, including the environment. The Government are standing on its head the statement that has just been made by the Minister because specific attention is being drawn and emphasis is being given to one item—value for money.
Secondly, it is grotesquely unsatisfactory that a general remit should be offered about value for money. The Minister concedes that the committee must do its best. How will it do that without guidance? If guidance is to be given, what will be its nature? The Minister has conceded that it is an extremely imprecise area. I do not believe that such imprecision should find its way into a Bill of this kind. It imposes nothing short of a duty on the consultative committee to have regard, on the basis of information available to it, to the value for money of any such measures. However, the committee is not given guidance as to how lit should go about measuring whether something is value for money. What sort of evidence is the committee to hear? That is riot the kind of consideration to which committees in the past have become accustomed. They have not had to undertake

1411
such a duty and I do not see why such a provision should be imposed upon them now. I am not reassured by what the noble Earl said.
Earl Howe: I am sorry that the noble Lord is not reassured by what I said. He has made some pertinent observations. I shall consider what he has said and write to him before a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Stedman: I was about to ask the Minister whether he will look again at what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, among other things. I believe that it is important that the noble Earl should look at the extension matter. I know that we do not have many Settle-Carlisle railways, but if such a problem crops up and a large number of objections are made, how is the extra help triggered off if committees have to deal with such matters within the 52 weeks? The Minister said that if there are many objections, then more resources would have to be made available to the committee. However, extra resources will not necessarily deal with 22,000 objections within a limited timescale and the committee may require longer than 52 weeks.
When the Minister looks again at Amendment No. 94 to consider what I said, perhaps he will give a little more thought to the question of extensions. Perhaps he will consider whether, rather than having joint submissions from two consultative committees, it is better to have one submission from the committee in which the major part of the closure procedure is concerned. I am sure that on occasions there may be conflicting advice from two committees and it may be better if one committee were to speak with one voice for the two committees.
Earl Howe: I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that I will look at those points between now and Report. I shall write to the noble Baroness on those matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 90D:
Page 45, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) The Regulator shall send to every consultative committee whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of the area affected a copy of every objection to the proposed closure which is lodged with him in accordance with the terms of the statement published pursuant to paragraph (e) of whichever of sections 32(6), 33(3), 34(5), (Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)(4), 35(5) or (Proposals to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)(4) above is applicable in the case of that proposed closure.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 97 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 97A to 97C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 98 to 100 not moved.]
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Reference to the Secretary of State of decisions of the Regulator concerning proposed closures]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 47, line 30, at end insert:
1412
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not exercise the power conferred upon him by subsection (2)(a) above without having obtained confirmation in writing from the Secretary of State for Defence that the proposed closure will not be contrary to the requirements of national defence.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say at once to the noble Earl that this amendment does not strike at the heart of the Bill, nor is it a wrecking amendment. I thought that I should begin my remarks by assuring the noble Earl that I am not trapping him into any great dangers.
Amendment No. 101 is extremely helpful to the Minister and the Government because it would provide some consistency and cohesion in the Bill. The Committee should refer to Clause 111 which gives the Secretary of State for Transport the power to take control of the railway system in times of hostilities. Clause 111 is extremely specific in giving the Secretary of State the power to take control of the rail network in times of hostilities.
Amendment No. 101 to Clause 37 merely seeks to impose on the Secretary of State a duty that, when the regulator has made a decision to close a particular line and that closure has been referred to the Secretary of State for Transport, before he exercises the powers given to him in Clause 37 to confirm the closure proposal from the regulator, the Secretary of State for Transport should obtain from the Secretary of State for Defence an assurance in writing that the closure would not be prejudicial to the requirements of national defence. That brings consistency to the Bill which I am absolutely certain will appeal to the noble Earl.
The noble Earl and I have one great thing in common; we are both far too young to remember the last war. But I am advised by those Members of the Committee who are much older than the noble Earl or myself that during the last war the railway system was absolutely vital to the war effort in this country. Indeed, one can imagine how the rail network was used to move men, machines, ammunition and almost everything else that was required for the successful pursuit of those hostilities.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is checking on my age. I shall be 63 in January. It is just that I have a bad memory.
I am seeking to persuade the noble Earl to accept the principle of the amendment rather than the amendment itself, because I always accept in Opposition that the drafting may be technically incorrect and not acceptable. However, Amendment No. 101 provides a consistency to the Bill. The matter could be handled quite easily by the Secretary of State for Transport when he publishes his decision in confirming a closure, adding the words that he is satisfied by the Secretary of State for Defence that the closure is not prejudicial to the requirements of national security. As I say, I believe that that would provide some cohesion to the question, where the Secretary of State for Transport has the power to take control of the railway network during times of hostilities. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Howe: I fully understand and sympathise with the thinking behind the amendment. While I had no clue at all about the noble Lord's age, I did have a shrewd suspicion that he would be treating the amendment as a probing one. Nevertheless, I have some difficulties with it. I shall explain my reasons.
The railway has an important role to play in national defence. That is quite clear. At present, closure proposals are decided by the Secretary of State. Before he makes his decision, as a matter of established practice, the views of a number of other government departments are sought, including the Ministry of Defence. I hope that it goes without saying —although I shall say it—that consent to closure would not be given if closure would prejudice defence interests. I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will discharge his duties under the new closure procedures with no less care than he does currently.
However, I hope that the noble Lord agrees with me that the matter is best dealt with administratively. Arrangements will he put in place, but I do not think that it is necessary to draw attention to the matter by including provision on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will appreciate that it is not the convention to distinguish in legislation between different Secretaries of State. At present, the Bill does not do so and I believe that it would be undesirable to depart from the convention in the manner which the amendment would involve. In the light of those reassurances—and that is what they are intended to be —I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: While I would have been happier if the Minister had indicated that he was prepared either to accept the amendment or at least to give it further consideration, I must admit that as we get older in life we are always prepared to settle for second best. The second best that I have been given today is having the Minister's assurance on the record. That is important, and I accept it. Therefore, I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 101ZA
Before Clause 38, insert the following new clause: ("Closure of railway line
.—(1) Where the Regulator's or the Secretary of State's decision leads to the closure of a railway line, the route of the closed railway shall be registered as a "Railway Right of Way" for a period of not less than ninety-nine years.
(2) Any land on which is registered a Railway Right of Way may be disposed of and developed at any time for alternative use subject to the provision that, on a recommendation from the Regulator and by order of the Secretary of State, the railway may be reinstated and the line reopened on all or part of the registered Railway Right of Way.
(3) Any person acquiring or proposing to develop land on which there is registered a Railway Right of Way shall inform the Regulator of his interest and intentions and shall not make any significant investment in the development of the land without written approval of the Regulator.
1414
(4) Where the Regulator recommends and the Secretary of State orders the reopening of a railway on land then owned by any person other than a railway operator or railway facility owner that person shall be given not less than twenty-five years notice of reopening or reasonable compensation in lieu of such notice.").
The noble Lord said: I am not sure whether the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, goes back as far as the Beeching plan or at what point his amnesia started. However, Members of the Committee on all sides will remember that, although in the short term the Beeching plan looked very good from an economic: point of view, many lines were closed at that time and many of the cuts were in fact a national mistake.
As the mobility of our population arid its freight has developed, so both passengers and freight have moved on to the roads. We then find ourselves in the cycle of having to build more roads or securing some other means to transport people and goods. We now have a situation where, in some parts of the country, the railways are coming back into demand. At present, there are more disused lines and stations being restored than there are lines under consideration for closure.
It is interesting to note that British Rail's route mileage, which was 19,630 in 1948, is now down to 10,270 miles which represents a reduction of just about half—that is, 9,360 miles. Of that reduced amount, only about 600 miles still remain in British Rail ownership. That has mainly been due to pressure from the Government, especially the DoE, on BR to dispose of surplus land. That has taken place fairly effectively. Very often such derelict or disused lines are handed over to the county council and, in some places, that has proved to be successful. For example, in my own fair county of Somerset, the county council leases the Taunton to Mineheacl line to the privately owned West Somerset Railway. It is only a pity that certain restrictive practices have stopped it connecting with the main line at Taunton. However, that is another long story. Moreover, part of the Taunton to Yeovil line is now used as a road. Avon County Council has bought a line between Bristol and Bath to use as a cycle track. That is something that one would also wish to encourage.
There are two worries on the horizon. First, there is the attention to closures contained in the Bill:, and, secondly, there is the declared intention of the Treasury to reduce support for regional railways which is the sector of BR that attracts the highest subsidy for rural lines and services. All indications suggest that there may be further decline arising from the provisions of the Bill. If the Treasury does not ease its demands for lower subsidies within the next five years, I am convinced that a great many rail closures will be suggested in various parts of Britain.
Our main concern must be the extent to which the closure proposals, when put into effect, will be irreversible. As I have already said, there are currently many cases of stations and lines being reopened. For example, the network of South Wales valley lines serving the Cardiff area and sponsored by Mid-Glamorgan County Council; the Oxford-Bicester line; the Birmingham Moor Street to Snow Hill line which was closed in 1972 and reopened in 1987; and, finally,

1415
the Rutherglen-Glasgow-Finniston line which was closed in 1964 and reopened in 1987. I have mentioned the dates because they show the time gap that very often occurs between the closure and the reopening. Moreover, nearer to here there is the London Thameslink Blackfriars to Farringdon line which was closed in 1962 and reopened in 1988.
There are many other lines under active consideration at present. I shall give the Committee just a few examples. There is Nottingham to Mansfield, Snowhill to Smethwick, and so on. There is also interest in the West Country, notably in Barnstaple, Bideford and Torrington. It would be unfortunate if such reopenings were unable to progress because of developments that have taken place on the line after it had been closed.
There are a number of cases of obstructed reopenings. For instance, I suppose the most obvious one is the Great Central line where it was proposed that the wide gauge should be used for piggy back to the Channel Tunnel and up to Derby. That is complicated by, among other things, housing development on the old Great Central rail track. There is also the case of the more direct route between Edinburgh and Perth which has now been lost under sections of the M.90.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that there is a limit to the destruction of the track that can take place. Although one accepts that some tracks will be closed, the idea of the amendment is to leave the responsibility with the Secretary of State and the regulator to protect those lines from unsuitable development, even if the chance of them ever being needed again is remote. Indeed, I can imagine that, at the time when some of the lines I have mentioned were closed, no one had the slightest idea that they would ever be reopened.
The purpose of the amendment is to set up a registered "Railway Right of Way", not totally to blight such areas of track but to ensure that the opportunity is there for them to be reopened and that there is always at the back of the minds of those who wish to develop the thought that such lines may be reopened at some subsequent time. Within the clause we would also like to see recommendations for compensation—or the possibility of compensation—that might be administered in the case of people who have developed parts of the track and subsequently find that they have to abandon those developments.
It is an important matter. If we have faith in the future of the railways and in their future development, we must ensure that mistakes are not made, as they were in the past following the Beeching cuts. It is in that spirit, and very much in the manner of a probing amendment, that I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I wish strongly to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He made an important point when he mentioned that we needed a flexible approach to this matter. He was not saying that all closed railway lines —or solums as we used to call them—should be eligible for a 99 year lease as certain developments on that land would be acceptable. We are all beginning to
1416
become aware of traffic problems, particularly in conurbations. We can build as many motorways as we like but, as they all lead into towns, we shall find there is a limit beyond which we cannot go in terms of building more motorways. I believe it is estimated that road traffic will increase by about 146 per cent. by the first quarter of the next century. Where can that increase be accommodated in London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow or any other town? People travelling into cities in the future will need to rely more and more on public transport.
Even at the time of the Beeching Report there was some concern to preserve railway routes. When I was at the Department of Transport a number of applications were made to cut railway lines to build roads or construct new developments. Sometimes it was decided that, rather than cut a railway line, a bridge would be built over it. At a later stage, if the railway line was not removed, people wondered why the bridge was still there as it appeared to be going nowhere. Therefore there was a flexible approach to these matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, some passenger transport executives have been able to open up a number of lines that people thought were closed for good.
In Glasgow the PTE has established a railway system which is almost as comprehensive as the London Underground. The PTE has established that system using the old tunnels of the four railway companies that used to come into Glasgow. This is an extremely important amendment. I hope the Minister will consider it carefully. The old railway companies were always conscious of the fact that they might need the land on which the track ran.
I do not believe the railway companies granted tenants more than an annual lease on railway property. The many small businesses that established themselves under railway arches were never permitted to take more than an annual lease. Unfortunately they tended to be tar paper constructions. The railway companies always had an eye to the future as regards their track. I believe nowadays we are a little more aware of the limitations of road transport and of the fact that we may need the railways to relieve the roads. I hope the Minister will look at this measure sympathetically. We are only asking for flexibility in this matter. We want the Government to be aware that, in the future, travel, particularly in the conurbations, will largely be reliant on public transport of some kind. The railways are surely one of the best methods of transporting people in conurbations.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: What has been said has caused me to recall the closure of a line in the constituency which I used to represent in the western part of Edinburgh. There used to be a line that ran from the suburb of Corstorphine into Waverley Station in the centre of the city. That line was closed as a result of the Beeching exercise. Were it open today I am quite certain that the build-up, the grumblings and the groanings of motorists as they queue to get through the narrow high street of Corstorphine would not exist. I remember the inquiry that was held at the time of the closure. I said to British Rail, "Please if you

1417
are going to close the line, at least leave the lines there, because once you have taken the lines up the chance of reopening the line is almost nil because the expense then becomes gigantic".
In a lot of country areas in the south east of Scotland, which I know well, tracks have been taken up because one cannot lay down a cycle track if sleepers are still there. That would result in uncomfortable bicycling. I believe the chances of those lines being needed in the future are pretty remote with the motor car population as it is. I do not believe there is a great need for leaving track in place in country areas. But if there is any question of closing railway lines within the ambit of a city, I strongly urge that track should be left in place in case it is needed in the future.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Attlee: I agree with practically everything that has been said to this amendment. However, I do not agree with the concept of leaving the track down as I believe that the steel in the railway weighs about 60 or 90 pounds a foot and therefore it stands to reason that the capital value of the scrap of even a mile of track would be quite considerable. It would be a shame to leave the track down for the gypsies to remove. It is important to remember that, with new technologies and materials, arid particularly magnetic materials, we could establish a new form of transport that would benefit from having the railway rights of way left in place.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to refer to a matter that may not have been mentioned so far, as it does not concern the economics of the railways. Many rail lines are considered to be green corridors; that is, routes by which wildlife can enter cities. Many disused railway lines are left in place as green corridors. However, if development takes place on routes where there used to be track, the green corridors will be cut. Many councils are now trying to encourage green wildlife corridors into cities and it would be a great shame if that initiative were lost.
Earl Howe: The purpose of Amendment No. 101ZA, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has explained, is to safeguard the lines of disused railways for potential future railway use. The Government are aware of anxieties that ex-railway land might be built on and then not be readily available for transport use at a future date. But, while I fully recognise the examples mentioned by the noble Lord, I believe his concern is somewhat misplaced. I hope the Committee will bear with me while I explain why.
The current procedures for disposal of disused track bed ensure that there is no current or foreseen railway use before sale is even considered. Once sale is decided, those with transport interests have every opportunity to bid for BR land. The knowledge that there is or could be a transport scheme in prospect for which compulsory purchase order powers are available—as this amendment suggests—or might be sought at some time in the future, could be expected to
1418
depress the interest of non-transport purchasers. Transport scheme promoters could obtain the land by CPO at a later date even if they failed at the auction.
This is essentially a land use planning issue and the planning system is well placed to deal with it. Local authorities can zone disused track bed for transport purposes in development plans, and reject planning applications for conflicting development. They can make it clear in response to land searches that transport uses are in prospect and that they would not favour planning applications for non-transport uses. Those will be local issues and mechanisms exist to deal with them.
I can provide further general reassurance. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to stress in future guidance to local authorities the importance of taking into account the potential future transport use of such corridors when drawing up their development plans. That guidance will then be taken into account in plans and in planning decisions.
Of course I accept that events can move over a period of perhaps a quarter of a century in ways that may not be foreseen at the time a decision is taken. However, doubtless the type of argument and examples brought forward today could also be brought forward to local authorities at the appropriate time. However, we envisage that a balance will continue. We believe that the present arrangements strike an appropriate balance between the need to dispose of vacant public land, the need to safeguard potential transport corridors and the rights of landowners. I stress to the noble Lord that disposal procedures and planning safeguards will remain in place after privatisation.
I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that for those reasons his amendment is not necessary.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Earl has not quite done that but he has given me food for thought. The problem is not so much those cases in which future transport needs are envisaged, even in the long term, but those cases in which future transport needs are not envisaged in the short or medium term. The purpose of the amendment was to provide some means of preserving such land against perhaps a local initiative. The balance is difficult to maintain. In some cases the pressures on local authorities to damage a future right of way can be great yet it might be in the national or regional interest for that right of way to be preserved in order to link up with a network at a later stage.
Obviously I shall not press the amendment today. I was most interested in what the Minister said. I shall. examine his response and possibly return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 38 to 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Experimental railway passenger services]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 50, line 33, leave out first ("to") and insert (" 33, 36 and").
The noble Earl said: The amendment was spoken to previously with Amendment No. 62A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 50, line 42 after ("proposes") insert ("following consultation with every consultative committee whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of the area affected by the proposed closure").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 102 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 103 to 107.
Amendment No. 102 establishes the closure procedure for certain experimental services covered by Clause 41. Where the operator of an experimental service subject to a franchise agreement intends to discontinue that service at the end of the franchise period, the franchising director is required to give notice if he proposes not to secure its continued existence. The amendment would require that the franchising director consults with the relevant rail users' consultative committee before deciding not to continue the service. That will at least ensure that there is some user input into the decision-making process before the closure of an experimental service is put into effect. It is important that the consultative committee should be able to make its input at that stage because once the franchising director has published his notice the closure happens automatically in a very short space of time.
Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 set out the procedure to be followed to discontinue an experimental service. The amendments would require that the franchising director or the operator should publish a notice at every station affected and in at least one newspaper rather than only one. The discontinuance of an experimental service can happen rapidly after six weeks' notice has been given. It is incumbent upon those who propose to close the service and take it out of use to give notice of their intention as effectively as possible.
Amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 107 set out the procedure for the franchising director to follow when he decides to designate a service as experimental. They would require that the franchising director sends a copy of his notice of designation to the relevant consultative committees and publishes the notice of designation at every station affected and in at least one local newspaper rather than only in a single newspaper.
It is important that users and the statutory users' committee are aware of the experimental status of a service. Complaints have already been raised in earlier stages of the Bill about local timetables being issued and stations not being included in those timetables although trains stop at those stations. It is important that the people who use the trains and those stations should be aware that the service is experimental. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: Amendments Nos. 103 and 106 concern the notices which must be published where an experimental service is to be so designated or where
1420
there is a proposal to close such a service. They would require the franchising director to publish notices at every station affected in each case.
I have no difficulty with the intent of the amendments, but I do not believe that they are necessary. As I indicated to the noble Baroness on an earlier occasion, the Bill sets out the minimum in terms of publication requirements. It already requires the franchising director to publish his notices in national and local newspapers and in any other manner he thinks appropriate. That could include publication at appropriate stations, and as a matter of good practice he may wish to do that. However, there is no need to spell that out on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 107 would require the notices that I have just described to be published in at least one local newspaper in addition to two national newspapers. The amendments would add little to the Bill. The present formulation is already effectively a minimum requirement since the franchising director is already empowered to publish the notice in such other manner as appears to him to be appropriate. If he considers it appropriate to publish it in two local newspapers he will do so.
Having been a little critical, I am pleased to say that I can be more positive about Amendments Nos. 102 and 105. Amendment No. 102 would have the effect that the franchising director must consult the appropriate rail users' consultative committee before proposing closure of an experimental service. Amendment No. 105 would require the franchising director to send to the appropriate consultative committee copies of his notice designating services as experimental. I have no difficulty with the intent of the amendments, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling them. However, I have reservations about their drafting and I should therefore like to take them away and consider them further before a later stage. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Baroness will not wish to press those or the other amendments in the group which she tabled.
Baroness Stedman: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I am getting more than I thought I would this afternoon. I am still a little unhappy that there is an either/or situation and that the director must meet a minimum requirement or, if he thinks fit, can do a little more. I still believe that he will tend to do the minimum. However, I note what the Minister said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 103 to 107 not moved.]
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Abolition of former closure procedures, exemptions from new procedures and imposition of alternative procedure]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 107A to 107C:
Page 52, line 32, after ("shall") insert ("subject to the provisions of this Act").
Page 53, line 5, at end insert:
(5A) Where any enactment or instrument passed or made before the relevant date contains provision to the effect that section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 is not to apply in respect of the discontinuance of specified railway passenger services

1421
or railway passenger services of a specified class or description, that provision shall (notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above) have effect in relation to any such discontinuance after the relevant date as if references in that provision to that section were references—

(a) to sections 32 and 33 above; and

(b) to Schedule 4 to this Act;

and in this subsection "the relevant date" means the date on which the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above come into force.").
Page 53, line 9, at end insert:
("(7) For the purposes of this section, "railway" has its wider meaning.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 107A, 107B and 107C en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 62A.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 107D:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause: ("Duties of station operator
.—(1) It shall be a duty of a station operator or franchisee to notify the Regulator at least 90 days in advance of his intention to reduce the number of hours during which any station under the control of the station operator or franchisee is staffed.
(2) In the event of receiving a notification as set out in subsection (1) the Regulator shall obtain the views of the appropriate Rail Users' Consultative Committee and organisations representing disabled persons.
(3) The Regulator shall refuse consent to a proposed change notified to him under subsection (I) above if he is satisfied, in the light of representations received from the organisation set out in subsection (2) above, that significant hardship, danger or loss of amenity will be caused by the change to any person or persons.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to prevent the destaffing of stations once the Bill becomes law without any adequate checking or warning. As I understand it, there are at least 6 million citizens in the United Kingdom who, through disablement of one kind or another, are unable to read platform numbers, destination indicators, lettering and numbers on their tickets, to use staircases and to carry luggage. Of course, those citizens do not have difficulty with all those matters; some Members of your Lordships' House have difficulty with some of those problems. Many of those individuals are unable to drive cars or, because they have a low income through disability, are unable to obtain a car to drive. I understand that out of approximately 2,500 British Rail stations, some 950 are already unstaffed, and 200 partly staffed. That means that for a large number of disabled people, the 950 stations which are unstaffed are probably unusable all the time, and those which are partly staffed will be unusable when no staff are on duty.
The amendment seeks proper consultation before serious reduction of staff at any station, or the complete removal of staff. As an illustration, perhaps I may describe a station near my home. It can be approached by car from the down train side only. Over the past 25 years the potholes on that side have frequently been so horrendous that anyone in a wheelchair would have had considerable difficulty even if delivered to the station by car. However,
1422
having reached that side, if he wishes to travel to London, the individual is faced by a staircase up to a bridge, then another staircase down on the other side. On his own he has no chance. His only alternative is to go out of the station and down a fairly steep hill to join a narrow road with a Z-bend corner underneath the railway at an extremely dangerous spot, and then to take a detour on the other side up a narrow and uneven path which is often overgrown with brambles. It is not the easiest route for a disabled person, and certainly not in a wheelchair. It is almost impossible for someone who is blind or partly sighted. It is such a situation that the amendment seeks to avoid. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendment, which stands in my name also. The case has been put cogently and comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or consider it and bring forward a provision that will meet the anxieties expressed.
Lord John-Mackie: I support the amendment. I come to London by train. There are steep steps at my local station of Broxbourne. The steps are not so steep coming into Liverpool Street, but they are very steep when returning home. Anyone who comes to Westminster will know of the steep steps there. The noble Lord should propose that every station has an elevator.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have a great deal of sympathy with the observations made by Members of the Committee. After a visit to Pakistan with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I was quite seriously ill; it was not his fault. I had a virus which affected my heart and I was away from the House for about seven weeks. For some little time after that I was unable to carry luggage with any degree of ease. I therefore support strongly the case that is made out by a number of Members of the Committee today. I found it extremely difficult to travel, for example, to Newcastle, and to York as I believe it was, where one simply had to walk up or down stairs; there was no alternative. That must affect not only disabled people but the elderly too. I believe that attention needs to be given to that aspect of the matter.
The groups representing the disabled feel very anxious about the matters to which reference has already been made, and with cause. The destaffing of stations, which has already taken place on a very substantial scale, and the understating of stations if they are not wholly destaffed, represent a real problem. Such destaffing has taken place largely because British Rail has felt impelled to run down its services in preparation for privatisation and in order to reduce costs. It is salutary that, at present, of 2,500 British Rail stations, 950 are unstaffed and another 200 only partially staffed. That represents about 40 per cent. of the total. It is a sad state of affairs. While the situation is bad enough, I believe that it could easily be exacerbated if the Bill were to be enacted, unless the Government are prepared to listen to the pleas that have been made in Committee.

1423
Understaffing has a bearing upon another matter. There are many vulnerable people around. Blind and partially sighted people are certainly exposed to dangers that may arise. Women are particularly vulnerable. We hear too many horror stories about assaults on women and other people at or about railways stations: these arise largely because of lack of staffing. Clearly the hazards are even more serious for the disabled, blind or partially sighted.
The Bill does not make any provision that can be regarded as adequate to deal with the matter. The people about whom we speak are, quintessentially, heavily dependent upon public transport. It is critically important that the debate in Committee should stimulate a positive reply from the Minister today.
We are talking about large numbers of people. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who is well versed in these issues and has made notable contributions in debates of a comparable kind—as indeed has the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth)—will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that we are talking about something like 6 million people. In addition, people who are disabled visit this country as tourists. They may be blind, partially sighted or have other disabilities. Therefore the figure is not simply 6 million, bad enough though that is in terms of people who find themselves unable to read the numbers on the platforms, the destination indicators, the lettering and numbers on self-service ticket machines, and so on. It is a matter to which the Government must give urgent attention. Even if the Bill were not to go through, which I sincerely hope will be the case—although we have done nothing by way of wrecking amendments; I deny that allegation altogether—this social problem needs to be addressed very rapidly.
I draw the Committee's attention to another matter, an issue raised, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in another debate and perhaps in another context. Voluntary bodies which provide special access facilities (ramps, and so on) which have been incorporated into the design of stations, would perhaps find that, if there were a further de-staffing of stations, the many millions of pounds that have been put into such efforts could be rendered vulnerable through damage by hooligans and others. The point that has been raised in this amendment is of the utmost importance. I am very glad to be associated with it.
Lady Kinloss: I strongly support the amendment. There are many stations which are very difficult for disabled people. They are difficult even for the able-bodied. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that it cannot have been York station that he found difficult. That station has very efficient passenger lifts, and many of the station staff are only too willing to help. If, for some reason (vandalism or otherwise) the lift is out of action, the staff will take you in the luggage lift.
Lord Tordoff: I heartily support this amendment and the intentions behind it. I should like to extend it a little further. I have received a briefing from the Suzy
1424
Lamplugh Trust, which obviously is very concerned about this matter. It is quite clear that many people are extremely fearful of going on to stations which are not properly manned. There may not be any actual danger. But it is the fear of danger in the absence of proper manning that causes the trouble. And indeed, it is quite clear that some people become victims because they exhibit the signs of fear; they exude fear, as it were. That very often brings out the worst in people and that is when attacks take place. So this matter does not relate only to disability—though that is extremely important; as Members of the Committee know, I have a connection, through one of my daughters, with looking after the partially sighted, so I get a constant stream of information on that aspect. I thought that I ought to mention that the amendment goes beyond the needs of the disabled into the whole area which is so wonderfully covered by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.
Lord Rix: I too should like to say a few words in support of this amendment, and perhaps at the same time indulge in a little heart-to-heart with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I too suffered a heart condition until the autumn of last year, when I had open heart surgery. I found that when I approached one of the London railway stations with my luggage that I was quite unable to carry it up the stairs. Equally, I was unable to find any staff to help me do so. This was in the recent past. So I hope that the staffing levels will be maintained at main London stations to provide disabled people with adequate support. Clearly, in one particular case that is not so.
I should also like to make reference not only to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust but also to MENCAP and the Disability Consortium, and return to a point that I made the other night. That, again, is the question of through-ticketing. If I may refer to the briefing: there is no guarantee that passengers will be able to buy through tickets from unstaffed stations. At present a through ticket is available for any journey between any two stations. If the station is unstaffed, a ticket is available from the guard on the train. After privatisation, operators will be under no obligation to sell through tickets on trains, so through tickets may be available only at staffed stations. That is despite the Government's assurance that through-ticketing will be preserved after privatisation, a point to which I made reference the other day.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Teviot: I had no intention of intervening until a few minutes ago, when the discussion about unmanned stations arose. Many unmanned stations will be totally closed through considerations of commercial value. I agree with a great deal of what has been said. Another aspect might be that cameras could be linked to a police station. It would be a great pity if, as a result, a great many stations had to be closed.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned luggage at mainline stations. That is terribly important. We must look very carefully at this whole area. There might be a code of practice, or some other approach that could be considered, perhaps at Report stage.
Earl Howe: This is a sensitive issue. I appreciate the anxiety about safety at stations which prompted this amendment. Stations should be safe and secure places for all passengers. However, I have to say to my noble friend that the fears that have been expressed that privatisation will exacerbate de-staffing have no foundation. We see no reason at all why privatisation should have that effect. While it will generally be for station operators to decide what staffing levels are appropriate, we believe that they will be most concerned to ensure that stations are safe and secure places for their customers to use. We also believe that the private sector will make better use of the commercial and development opportunities at stations, and that passengers will benefit from the improved facilities which will result. Operators will, after all, wish to attract people to stations in order to maximise their commercial benefit. As a general observation, there is no evidence that their needs of disabled people are overlooked or ignored by transport operators in the private sector. It is not in its interest to do so. Much as I understand my noble friend's anxieties, I have difficulty with Amendment No. 107D. I believe that it is too intrusive and too inflexible.
I think that we need to be more selective in identifying genuine problems. This is precisely an area where the franchising director will want to have the views of the consultative committees and other representative groups, including those representing disabled people, when holding franchise competitions. In the light of their comments, the franchising director would, for example, be able to specify minimum staffing levels at qtations where he considers that that is necessary. Franchisees would then have to meet those minimum levels. We shall be looking in more detail at the many ways in which disabled passengers, including visually impaired people, can be helped when we come to discuss Amendment No. 111.
There is much less of a problem with station operators who are not also franchisees—the sort of case alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. They will generally be running the very large stations, where staffing levels should not present any problems of safety for disabled people. Moreover, the train operators who are paying to use those stations will have every incentive to ensure that station operators provide the best possible service to passengers, and safety will clearly be a paramount concern. With this in mind, a train operator is very likely to want to set out the minimum staffing levels at a station in the access agreement that he enters into with a station operator. The station operator will then be bound to honour that agreement.
I intend these remarks to be reassuring. I hope that in the light of what I have been able to say my noble friend will not feel that he has to press his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I find the Minister's remarks less than reassuring, and inappropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the evidence that has already been placed before the Committee of which he must be aware. Surely, it is inherently improbable, with the present. difficulties which have arisen with regard to British Rail, because of the pressures it is
1426
under and the destaffing or understaffing that already exists, that the new franchisees will be asked to remedy the situation. That exceeds any possibilities.
To say that these amendments are too intrusive and inflexible is an argument not worthy of the Minister. He could have said that in principle the Government ought to go along with the amendment but that the wording was wrong. In fact, I hoped—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, hoped—to receive a positive reply from the Minister in relation to these matters.
The Minister said that staffing levels at the larger stations are unlikely to present difficulties for the disabled. I recommend him to go along to some of the larger stations. There are major problems under the existing management because of the pressures that have been and will continue to be imposed. We are told that 50,000 staff are likely to find their jobs at hazard over the course of the next year or so.
There is every probability that there will be further difficulties facing passengers at stations under the present regime, let alone the new one. I feel that the Minister is somewhat naive in believing that somehow or other the benevolence of private franchisees will be such that they will place this issue above the issue of profit. The whole thing is absurd. The Minister might say, "Well, what they are about is trying to ensure that people enjoy travel and encouraging them to go on the railways". That is part of his case. However, I still believe that when it comes to the overwhelming majority of cases, those aspirations will not be fulfilled.
Whether or not I am right, at the moment there is a problem that has to be addressed. Some of the importance of this debate lies in alerting people—British Rail in particular —to the concern of this Chamber about the problems that exist at the moment. We are entering a totally new scenario and additional protection needs to be provided. It is singularly missing from the Bill as it stands. I simply cannot go along with the argument that the provision is too intrusive and too inflexible. I hope that the Minister will think further about it. My recommendation would be not to divide the Committee at the present time but to give the Minister another few months until we come to Report stage to give further consideration to this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord. Swinfen, may decide to put the matter to a vote tonight. If he does not do so, I hope that he will return to it. We shall certainly support him when the matter comes to Report stage. We hope that after further reflection the Minister will then be able to be rather more positive than he has been today.
Lord Tordoff: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may interject. It seems to me that the amendment is a fallback position. It does not deal with the situation at the moment of franchise. It deals with the situation where, for one reason or another, the operator has or wishes to reduce the staff'. This is not a pious hope for the future—the hope that market forces will make people want to make their stations better. The amendment seeks to ensure that in those cases in which the operator, for whatever reason, wants to

1427
reduce the staff, certain arrangements will come into operation and certain safeguards will be built in. It is in that light that we should look at these amendments.
Earl Howe: I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has taken fully into account either what I said or what has been said in another place. Ministers have given a commitment that the needs of disabled people will be specifically referred to as one of the considerations which the franchising director must consider in furtherance of his objectives. The franchising director's duties will depend on instructions and guidance from the Secretary of State. That will include the needs of the disabled. We do not want to be too prescriptive because some cases will not warrant wide consultation at all.
The point I made earlier was that it is not benevolence that will motivate the station operators; it is the reputation of the line, which is vital to both station operators and the operators of the line. The noble Lord spoke about stations as they are at the moment. I do not quarrel with him over that. But we have to take account of the real world as it is in the private sector.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend will probably realise from comments made by Members of the Committee that I find his answer to the amendment extremely disappointing. I doubt whether he or his advisers understood it. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is quite right. It is a fallback position. It is a request that consultation should take place when, at some future date, after a franchisee has taken control of the station he wishes to reduce the number of station staff or remove staff altogether. It is not an up front position. It is a delayed position where I am attempting to make certain that problems do not arise.
Problems arise today very genuinely. I have with me a letter from someone who was very seriously discommoded and left in serious pain after having her request to be met at Victoria ignored. She had to get a friendly person to go and get the help that had been booked. Someone who works for me uses a wheelchair. She was left on a train at a country station where she had made arrangements to be taken off. She had to go on to another station completely ignored by the staff and unable to do anything to help herself.
I feel that my noble friend should give this matter more consideration between now and Report stage. I realise that the drafting of the amendment probably leaves a great deal to be desired. No doubt it can be improved. If my noble friend had said that he was going to take the amendment away, consider the drafting and come back again, I should have been delighted. I shall not ask the Committee to divide on this matter this evening. That was never my intention. But I must admit that I hoped to have a more satisfactory answer from my noble friend. I admit to being extremely disappointed and in all probability I shall return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Alternative closure procedure.]
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 141, line 4, at end insert:
("Functions of the Secretary of State
4A.—(1) In discharging any of his functions under this Schedule in relation to, or to a proposal by an operator for, the discontinuance of all railway passenger services from any station or on any line, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any matters which for the time being appear to him to be relevant, including any social or economic considerations.
(2) In the case of any closure requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under this Schedule—

(a) the Secretary of State may give his consent subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, including conditions to be complied with after the closure;

(b) the Secretary of State may from time to time vary or revoke the conditions for the time being required to be complied with in connection with the closure, whether the closure took place before or after the coming into force of the Schedule;

(c) those conditions may include conditions as to the provision of alternative services; and

(d) whether before or after the closure, and whether the closure took place before or after the coming into force of this Schedule, the Secretary of State may from time to time give such directions to the operator of the services proposed for closure or to the operator of the alternative services as he thinks fit in connection with the closure;

and where any such condition or direction relates to the provision of, or assistance in the provision of, alternative services, the Secretary of State may refer to a consultative committee any matter relating to those services, and the committee shall consider and report on that matter to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 42 abolishes the existing statutory closure procedure for railways and enables the Secretary of State by order to exempt railway passenger services, networks and other railway facilities from the closure provisions of the Bill. It also enables Schedule 4, which broadly replicates the existing statutory closure procedures to be applied to the railway services not subject to the requirements of Clauses 32 and 33.
Schedule 4 replicates only those closure procedures set out in Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962. Unfortunately, it fails to replicate the amendments to the closure procedures brought into being by the 1968 Act. Those concern the requirement on the Secretary of State to take into account social and economic considerations and give to him the ability to impose conditions when consenting to a closure.
Without this amendment the Secretary of State may find that he is unable to impose conditions in consenting to a closure under this procedure, and is not required to take into account in reaching his decision all relevant matters. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Earl Howe: Let it not be said in these debates that the Government do not give credit where it is due, especially to the noble Baroness. I am grateful to her for detecting a flaw in the Bill as drafted. The intention of Schedule 4 is to replicate the existing closure procedures as they apply to operators such as London Underground. In doing so, we omitted to carry into the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to give

1429
consent subject to conditions, and for him subsequently to vary or revoke those conditions. We propose to bring forward a government amendment to remedy those omissions.
However, we do not consider that provisions equivalent to Amendment No. 108 in its entirety are necessary. For example, the Bill as currently drafted is silent on what matters the Secretary of State must take into account in deciding closure proposals. He must therefore take into account all matters that are relevant. It is not necessary to say so in the Bill, then give examples of matters that might be relevant. Similarly, we propose that the power to impose conditions should be unqualified, in which case it is not necessary to provide that any closure conditions may include the provision of alternative services.
I hope, in the light of what I have said, that the noble Baroness will not press Amendment No. 108.
Baroness Stedman: I am grateful to the noble Earl and I look forward to seeing the government amendment at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 108A:
Page 141, line 9, at end insert:
("(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, "railway" has its wider meaning.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Performance of the Franchising Director's duties to secure the provision of services etc.]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 108B:
Page 53, line 11, after ("Director") insert ("has notified the Board and any appropriate Passenger Transport Executive of their powers under section 46(1A) below, and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 108B, for the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 108C.
The amendments give effect to the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee in another place. I should stress that it is an all-party committee and has a high reputation for probity and impartiality. In one of its recommendations, the committee said,
"We recommend that the Government should continue to fund British Rail's rolling stock renewals until it is quite clear that franchisees are ready to assume this responsibility".
The committee said also,
"It is vital that what remains of BR is not allowed to become a poor relation in terms of investment … the Government should make clear its commitment to ensuring that adequate funds are available to British Rail to enable it to keep rolling stock on unfranchised services up to a reasonable standard".
As we understand it, Clause 46 is to enable the franchising director and PTEs to give comfort to lessors and other investors in rolling stock or railway assets that the latter will continue in use for the life of the asset and that reasonable residual values will be maintained. Together with other requirements on franchisees, they make clear the pivotal role of the franchising director in assembling and protecting packages of assets required to operate franchises.
That may be sufficient once a franchise is in place. But it will he quite some time before that is the case.
1430
In the interim, the franchising director will pay subsidies to the board under public service-obligations. The proposed addition to Clause 46 will allow the board and PTEs, by agreement with the franchising director, to continue rolling stock renewal and refurbishment programmes.
A clear case in point is the need for new trains on the Leeds-Bradford electrification scheme in West Yorkshire. In that case the PTE seeks to acquire on lease £40 million of new rolling stock for BR to use. Two problems prevent the finalisation of the proposals. First, lessors are not convinced, even since Clause 46 was added to the Bill at Report in another place, that continuity of use of assets and maintenance of residual values is assured. Secondly, the size of the order in relation to the PTA's asset base requires certain safeguards in respect of the Government's revenue support grant payments before a lease can prudently be entered into.
I understand that a joint working party of department and PTE officials has been investigating those issues. The amendment seeks to clarify the position before franchising commences, by making it clear that the franchising director will continue any agreements that the board or a PTE may enter into in the interim to acquire new rolling stock or refurbish existing trains. There is no risk to public expenditure from that, as the Government exercise control over the expenditure both of the board and of local government.
The example of the Leeds-Bradford electrification scheme in West Yorkshire was debated at some length in a government debate in another place. Even in the. short time available, a number of Members were able to state the case. One of the points that arose strongly was that, although, as I have mentioned. refurbished stock may be used in some cases, there was a strong feeling—as I believe there is in areas where new lines are being built or new types of rail transport are being introduced—that there should be no attempt to overdo the refurbishing of stock. For instance, it was suggested that some of the Network South East stock should be refurbished and taken up to Leeds. Anyone who has travelled on that stock—the commuters down here—will confirm that it is clapped out. It would be insulting to build a new service and use that stock.
Amendment No. 108B is important from a number of points of view. One of the most important is the state of the rail producing industry in this country. Public investment is reducing rapidly. Much British Rail investment in 1992 was spent on works linked to the Channel Tunnel project. Domestic investment in the existing railways was estimated at £987 million in 1992–93 but it was projected by British Rail that it would reduce to £543 million in 1993–94 and increase' slightly to £636 million in 1994–95. That is not because there is a shortage of worthwhile projects; it is because there is a shortage of public money. If the national will was present, £13 billion could be spent within a decade. For instance, France has investment plans for over £30 billion, most to be completed by the year 2000.
My point is that, if we do not spend money now, while we still have a manufacturing industry for the railways, the chances are that by the time the green shoots grow high enough, we may not have a railway industry left. The railway industry believes that it has only two or three years or less to do substantial public work to modernise our railways. Should the railways industry close down, we will be importing our railway equipment from France, Germany, Switzerland or elsewhere and creating problems with the balance of payments in this field as well as in many others.
I hope that the Minister will take all those points into consideration. It is a vitally important amendment and I hope that he will be able to give us a satisfactory reply. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: Amendment No. 108D should have been in my name instead of that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, but I should gladly have given it to him since I shall talk about Yorkshire. His ancestral home is the other side of the Pennines, in Lancashire, and even though I was going to talk about Saddleworth or Todmorden, I should gladly have given it to him. However, I shall have pleasure later in moving Amendment No. 108D.
The amendment addresses an important point which has also been clearly addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The point was raised by recent practical experience in trying to arrange leases for electric trains for use in West Yorkshire. As the Committee knows, a £50 million package of schemes is currently underway to electrify and re-signal the busy commuter lines in the Aire and Wharfe valleys which link Skipton and Ilkley with Leeds and Bradford. In the case of the Ilkley lines, they were proposed for closure in the Beeching report; but under the progressive policies of the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority, the lines have seen such dramatic traffic growth—more than doubling in the past 10 years—that electrification is now urgently required to increase capacity and improve reliability.
For those who do not know the area, I remind Members of the Committee that, arriving at Leeds Station from Euston, one looks at all those busy trains on the left which go to the splendid conurbations, villages and far distant destinations. West Yorkshire passenger transport executive was a pioneer of leasing trains. It first did it about six years ago because British Rail could not supply the trains required. There are now four classes of unit acquired on lease—the first two on finance leases, and the latter on the now required operating leases. Finance houses were keen to write leases for the passenger transport executive, as they saw very secure lessees and certainty of continued use of the assets.
Unfortunately, when negotiations were well advanced for the Airedale and Wharfedale trains, a significant problem arose. The prospect of privatisation and suggestions that the status of the passenger transport authorities might change led to onerous termination conditions which the passenger transport authority could not prudently accept. What the financiers were worried about was continuity and security: would the passenger transport executive
1432
continue in the same form? Would the passenger transport executive's role be overridden by the franchising director? Would franchisees want the trains? What would be the position if a franchise changed hands? Would all the parties be as creditworthy as the passenger transport executive, and so on?
My right honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport, Mr. Roger Freeman, has been most helpful to the passenger transport authority. Indeed, in an adjournment debate in the other place a week ago tonight, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred, Mr. Freeman said:
"Although I understand the difficulties of both parties, I am convinced that they are not insuperable and should be capable of resolution with a little give and take. The Government are prepared to he part of the give".—(Official Report, Commons, 30/6/93; col. 1085.]
I think it is true to say that Clause 46 is in part evidence of that spirit, having been influenced by the ongoing discussions between the department, passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives, both on the particular case and the wider issues of principle relating to assets funded by PTAs.
However, the response from prospective lessors so far has been that although Clause 46 gives them comfort, it does not go far enough. The amendment proposes a modest addition to the clause which makes it crystal clear that the franchising director is able to stand four square with the PTE by undertaking to continue use of the assets acquired through successive franchise periods. The wording also covers satisfactorily, I hope, the period before franchising starts, which was touched on by Amendment No. 108C.
In view of the spirit of co-operation which has surrounded discussions between the passenger transport authorities, the passenger transport executives and the Department of Transport, both nationally, and, in the case of West Yorkshire, locally, I hope that the Minister will accept this constructive addition to the Bill.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say this. I have been reading the Bill to try to find out its effect on the urban authorities, the PTAs and the PTEs. I was in at the conception of the PTEs and PTAs on Merseyside and the fear was expressed that when they were set up there would be difficulty in apportioning responsibility between them.
Repeatedly throughout the Bill, the responsibility switches. Sometimes the Bill deals with what appear to be powers given to the PTE; sometimes powers appear to be given to both. In regard to the franchisee, the PTE will negotiate an agreement, but it must have the approval of the PTA. I suppose that I could have written to the Minister and asked for an answer to the question that I am about to put. Alternatively, I could have put down what are formally called "probing amendments". However, that would have taken a long time so I thought it would be better to take this opportunity briefly to ask the Minister a question. I shall try to make it as clear as I can.
I accept that the present division of responsibility between the PTEs and the PTAs is fair. It was

1433
negotiated over many years; but the responsibility differs in different places. In Merseyside, I understand that the relationship between the two is very close indeed. The same offices serve both. In other places, they are not as close. I may consider putting down an amendment later on, depending on the answer that I receive to my question. I do not expect an answer at the moment.
With that in mind, will the Minister write to me stating how many powers the Bill confers on the PTE, without involving the PTA? I hope I have made the question clear so that the Minister understands it. I am very anxious, having seen the growth of PTEs and PTAs in establishing an integrated transport network in the locality, that that should not be damaged, and that local authorities should not be further pushed into the background.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I ought to put in a word of explanation. Although my name is down to Amendment No. 108D, I did not put it down. Apparently the names Teviot and Tordoff were confused at some stage; but, nevertheless, having heard the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, put forward, I support the amendment.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, whether he was speaking to Amendment No. 108E which I understand was grouped with these amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for so clearly explaining the amendments and the purposes behind them.
I start by answering his Amendment No. 108B, which would require the franchising director to notify the board and any appropriate PTE of their powers under the new subsection (1 A) of Clause 46, which is the subject of Amendment No. 108C, before he could enter into agreements or arrangements with other persons under Clause 43(1).
I have to say to the noble Lord that I do not think that it would be appropriate to have in this Bill a provision which provides for the franchising director to notify another person of that other person's powers under the Bill, before the franchising director is able to perform his duty under Clause 43(1).
Amendment No. 108C would require the franchising director to exercise his franchising functions so as to ensure the continuation of agreements to secure new or improved rolling stock entered into by BR or any PTE, before franchising of any particular service takes place. Clause 46(2) already enables the franchising director to enter into agreements with any person whereby the franchising director may undertake to exercise his franchising functions in a particular manner. It is not clear in the amendment how it is envisaged that the franchising director would exercise his functions to ensure the continuation of any agreements entered into by the board or PTE. But in any event I do not believe that it is acceptable that a duty be placed on the franchising director to undertake to exercise his franchising functions to achieve a particular result.
I turn to Amendment No. 108D mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teviot. That would enable the
1434
franchising director to guarantee the performance by a PTE of its duties and obligations under any franchise agreement to which an agreement under Clause 46(3) is related. My noble friend Lord Teviot said that the amendment was a small extra step. I am sure that Members of the Committee would agree that it would not be desirable for the franchising director to give guarantees in respect of the obligations of a PTE under a franchise agreement. If PTEs are to be parties to franchise agreements, then they, not the franchising director, must surely be responsible for meeting their obligations under such agreements.
I turn to the main amendment, Amendrnent No. 108E, concerning the leasing of assets. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned that in relation to West Yorkshire. He adduced the current uncertainties that were continuing there when he spoke to the amendment. I say to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Teviot, that I am not clear that the doubts about the powers of the PTEs to lease are at the heart of the present difficulties. Indeed, I believe that my noble friend Lord Teviot made the position clearer by saying that it was more a question of continuity and security which is at the heart of the concerns. The West Yorkshire PTE and other PTEs in the West Midlands and Strathclyde have already leased rolling stock.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the West Yorkshire PTE officials and my department officials have discussed the effect of Clause 46 powers on the West Yorkshire proposals and the deal. The PTE officials are now resuming discussions with their lessors. I was grateful for the tribute that my noble friend Lord Teviot paid to my right honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport, Mr. Roger Freeman. I can also say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend is due to meet the leader of the West Yorkshire PTE on 15th July to review progress. So he certainly has not given up his interest in this particular matter.
It is also worth noting that the amendment goes very much wider than rolling stock. It would give PTEs an explicit power to acquire, by lease, rolling stock, network services, stations, buses or any other assets used in connection with the provision of local passenger transport services and, furthermore, a power to let out those assets on loan, hire or lease.
I put it to the Committee that PTEs do not need an explicit power to enter into leases. Section 10(1)(xxxii) contains a power:
"to do all other things which in their [that is, the PIEs'] opinion are necessary to facilitate the proper carrying on of their business".
Further, Clause 31(1), as amended by your Lordships in Committee on 5th July, amends Section 10(1) of the Transport Act 1968 so that a PTE will be able to let on hire railway locomotives and other rolling stock. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment is desirable because in part it duplicates what is already provided for in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned investment. Yes, there has been considerable investment over recent years and we are keen that that should continue. But after a long period of sustained investment to a high value, it is natural that it should

1435
tail off at a certain stage. For instance, the average life of rolling stock is perhaps 25 to 35 years, but when one considers the rolling stock on regional railways in this country, I wonder how many noble Lords would know how old it is. Approximately 90 per cent. of the diesel trains are less than eight years old. When one considers that such rolling stock has a life of about 30 years, it is not really surprising that there is a tailing-off in some of the investment. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said that he did not want a reply now so I will not give him one now.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister made a very good job of apparently covering all the points that were raised. One of the major points I was trying to make and which is implicit in the amendments relates to railway manufacturing industry, about which he really said nothing. He said that investment was continuing. I gave the noble Earl figures comparing the situation with France. I compared the figures with last year's figures because there has been much greater investment due to the Channel Tunnel. From then on the figures go down.
The Minister must be fully aware that the railway manufacturing industry is in a very serious state. Surely that is not another industry which we want to lose so that we have to import from Japan or some other part of the world. Our problem is how investment will be assured in future. How will it be possible for the PTAs or even the franchisees to be assured of long-term investment? That is the real point. In merely drawing the Minister's attention to that point, I wish to have the opinion of the Committee on this question.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord finally makes up his mind, perhaps I may point out to him that I took some trouble to answer the point about investment. I mentioned the age of the diesel electric trains on regional railways where the average age of 90 per cent. of the stock is now eight years. That shows how much investment has taken place. The noble Lord will be aware of the proposed leasing arrangements. We are waiting to hear the results of those arrangements. That is one area where new finance will be able to keep the level of investment going.
We also hope that the private sector, when it bids and wins franchises, will bring in extra money. In setting the details of the franchise, the franchising director will, if necessary, be able to take into account the investment which the potential franchisee is going to make or indeed which the franchising director wants to make. So there is hope. We understand the position of manufacturing industry in this country. None of us wants to see it deteriorate any more than the continual decline which has occurred since the Second World War. The fuller answer which I have now given to the noble Lord should be of some reassurance to him.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I do not want to be churlish to the Minister for I know that he is doing his best. We allow for the fact that the railway
1436
manufacturing industry will probably exaggerate a bit, but the problem is that they are talking in terms of the order books being empty by 1995. Therefore the situation is quite serious. I have said before that in Britain—particularly in my part of the country, which was one of the great exporters of railway equipment —that has now all gone. We do not have much time. Even if we are out by a couple of years and it is 1997 before the real crisis of job losses occurs—that has already started and is quite severe in many areas—it is important that we emphasise that for the sake of the railway industry. We shall look at what the Minister has said, but on that one point alone we must divide the Committee.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 149.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartclifle, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mulley, L.

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Foot, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Serota, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Teviot, L.

Henniker, L.

TordofT, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blake, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blatch, B.

Annaly, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Arran, E.

Boardman, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Bolton, L.

Astor, V.

Borthwick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Barber, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bauer, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beloff, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Bessborough, E.

Butterworth, L.

1437

Cadman, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carnock, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Merrivale, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelmer, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Morris, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountevans, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Mountgarret, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore. L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cranborne, V.

Newall, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Onslow, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Prentice, L.

Elles, B.

Quinton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton. L.

Rees, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Flather, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geddes, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sandys, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Savile, L.

Goold, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Sharpies, B.

Granard, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Stewartby, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strange, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harrowby, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Hives, L.

Swansea, L.

Holderness, L.

Swinton, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thatcher, B.

Howe. E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Huntly, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Ironside, L.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Leigh, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.37 p.m.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Exercise of functions for purpose of encouraging investment in the railways]:
[Amendments Nos. 108C and 108D not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: There is common ground between us in that we all want to see investment. encouraged. I believe that we are a little more realistic about it than the Government. But, be that as it may., investment in rolling stock, signalling and so forth is important, as my noble friend Lord Carmichael said. It is right in principle that the franchising director and the PTEs should agree as to the future use of their powers, and that is set out in the Bill. I have some anxiety about the competition implications.
If one looks at the Notes on Clauses—I read from the introduction—one sees:
"It would also enable the Franchising Director to give undertakings about how he will exercise his franchising powers in future in order to encourage investment in assets for use in the provision of railways services, He might, for example, want to undertake to a rolling stock lessor that he would require future franchisees to use that lessor's stock"
The logic of that is reasonable. I in no way dissociate myself from it. But I am a little worried about the competition rules, and I will come to that point. The introduction continues:
"This would give the lessor confidence that he would not be left with stock which he could not re-lease at the end of the initial franchise. Without such comfort, private sector lessors are unlikely to be prepared to invest in rolling stock with a. 30–year life on the strength of. say, a 7-year lease to an franchisee".
I agree with the purpose of that requirement.
It is most helpful that we have the Notes on Clauses which give us a greater insight into the Government's thinking in advance of a debate like this. From examining the Notes on Clauses we see the way in, which the franchising director will go about exercising his powers. That is the Government's indication. It is purely indicative. I wonder how that requirement is likely to be viewed by the Office of Fair Trading. The Minister and his department may have had discussions with the Office of Fair Trading. I wonder how the indication that the franchising director would require future franchisees to use a particular lessor's, stock fits in with the competition articles of the Treaty of Rome. I wonder whether the department has had discussions in advance with DG4 (the competition directorate general) about this point.
It is a matter which relates to the application of Articles 3, 5 and 85. Article 3(a) of the treaty refers to
"the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent. effect".
That includes the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the Common Market is not distorted. As I see it, the difficulty is that there is prima facie some distortion if one favours one lessor in that way. and favours him for a long period of time. I hope that the Government will be able to persuade not just me —it is less important that they persuade me—but the competition authorities that what they are doing is acceptable and is not likely to be challenged.
Article 5 merely provides that member states,
"shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty".
It is Article 85 in particular that seems to me to be most relevant. Article 85.1 provides:
"The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market".

1439
I need not go through all the items that are cited. It continues:
"all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States".
The requirement appears prima facie to be a possible restriction or distortion of competition within the Common Market. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances to the Committee, or reflect upon the matter further. I mentioned to him in general that I would be raising this point. I hope that sufficient assurances can be given, because it would be most unsatisfactory if we went ahead with the provision and it was later open to a massive challenge from rolling stock manufacturers or lessors from outside this country, or even from within, because of course the competition articles can be prayed in aid by industries of undertakings within a Community member state.
I make it clear to the Minister that I want to see him get away with this. It is a sensible proposition, but I worry a little about the legal implications, and that the situation could go wrong. I hope not, and I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, had to say. I shall have to look at this matter after reading what he has said in the Official Report. I assure him that we have discussed the Bill with the Commission. It has not raised any points on Clause 46. It is obviously aware of the situation but has not as yet come back to us. There is no question that we shall be in breach of any of the competition rules with regard to the investment in the first place, because if the initial franchisee goes for rolling stock he will go to the market and be bound by the competition rules. This is the next stage. It is designed to ensure that that investment is put to good effect over the life of that investment.
The franchisee might well be looking at German, French or two types of British equipment for his franchise. It is the continuation of the use of that asset once we have gone through all the competition rules which is the point that the noble Lord is on, and that is the point at which I need to look again.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister. It is better to be safe than sorry. I do not claim to have special expertise in this field, but I have taken a view from some lawyers. They have confirmed the anxiety about which I went to them. It may well be that the Commission is satisfied. On the other hand, perhaps its attention did not reflect upon that clause. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. It would be helpful if he would let me know the outcome of any reference he makes about this matter to the Commission so that if we can avoid referring to the matter on Report so much the better. We shall be rather busy on Report anyway.
Clause 46 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 108E not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
1440
Clause 48 [No person to be common carrier by railway]:
On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: This is a technical Motion. I now realise that it is deficient. I should have tabled an amendment explaining that the Secretary of State would have the power to decide who should be a common carrier in a particular instance. It would be designed to protect the Secretary of State in case there was a national emergency of some kind falling short of hostilities. For instance, when oil prices went through the roof and there was a threat of rationing, it might have been important for the Secretary of State to have the power to order certain things to go by rail instead of road because of the possible shortage of motor fuel.
That was the only reason for opposing the Question that Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill. If the Minister will think about the matter I shall table an amendment on Report in order to include that consideration in the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that the noble Lord will consider that to be unnecessary. This short clause is simply trying to continue the procedure that has been in effect for British Rail since 1962. British Rail has not been regarded as a common carrier since that date. We have survived various oil price crises, and perhaps on reflection the noble Lord will agree that such situations can be taken care of naturally in the commercial nature of a deal between a franchisee or a licensee and the Government in certain circumstances.
As regards the Gulf War and the chartering of ships, the Government were able to go to the market and charter the appropriate vessels in order to carry out the task that had been set. In exactly the same way, one does not need the railways to be a common carrier under certain circumstances; one can deal with such situations in the normal course of commercial events.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. I suppose that, if necessary, the Secretary of State could take emergency powers in order to insist that the railway should carry certain goods. I shall read the Minister's answer, which seemed to be satisfactory—
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord a little more by referring him to Clause III, which gives the Secretary of State wide powers in national emergencies.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clauses 49, 50 and 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Power to require information etc.]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkfordmoved Amendment No. 109:
Page 61, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Board to furnish any person with any information the furnishing of which might, in the opinion of the Board, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of the Board or any of its subsidiaries.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 109, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 124 which relates to Clause 72 dealing with the disclosure of

1441
information to the franchising director. When Amendment No. 109 was tabled it did not have the significance that it has assumed since the decision of the Committee to allow the British Rail Board to tender for franchises. When the original amendment was placed on the Marshalled List the Government had held to their firm position and view that the BRB should not be allowed to tender for any of the franchises. The Committee reversed that position in earlier proceedings.
We are now in a position in which the Government and Department of Transport are plundering—if that word is acceptable—the information and knowledge of the British Rail Board in order to make the Bill work. We fear that under the provisions of Clauses 52 and 72 the British Rail Board will be placed in a position where the "appropriate officer" can require any person to provide any information which he deems to be appropriate to the matter under consideration. The exceptions to that are that that person will not be required to provide information that he would not be required to provide in either civil or criminal court proceedings.
Amendment No. 124 relates to Clause 72, which gives the franchising director the power to require the disclosure of information in considering applications for franchise. Therein lies the danger to the British Rail Board. I hope that the Minister will see how the position has changed as a result of the decision taken by the Committee.
We could easily find ourselves in the ludicrous position in which the British Rail Board is required to provide information in particular to the franchising director which could be passed on to a competitor for a franchise, thereby putting the board at a serious disadvantage. Equally, because such things happen, the British Rail Board could be put in the even more ludicrous position of being required to provide information to be passed on to an organisation or a company—a bus operator is a good example—which has no intention of bidding for a franchise but is keen to obtain that information from the board. The only way in which it can obtain that information is under Clause 52, the appropriate officer, or under Clause 72, the franchising director. The powers of the franchising director come into play when he begins to parcel up various parts of British Rail in order to be franchised.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the position has now changed. I accept that the amendments had been tabled before the position changed, but as a result of that change they have assumed an even greater importance. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend will not accept Amendments Nos. 109 and 124. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, suggested that when a franchise is to be invited for a subsidiary, the board needs to tell only part of the truth. I remember when some 60 years ago a Member of this Chamber was sent to prison because he disclosed only half the truth in a prospectus relating to the sale of a subsidiary company. The learned judge, the late Mr. Justice Avory, used these penetrating words: "Half the truth is no better than a lie". In the circumstances envisaged in Clause 52 it is essential that its terms should remain as they are and
1442
that the board should be required to provide all the relevant information. Therefore I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, gave the game away a little by saying that the amendment was tabled before the events of Monday evening which aroused so much exciternent. It is a little ingenuous of the noble Lord to say that those events made the amendment more necessary and that it is merely consequential. I disagree with the noble: Lord. I agree with this part of the Bill, at any rate, and I fear that the noble Lord's amendment is intended to make the much-needed process of privatisation more difficult. For that reason I shall oppose it.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I understand the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, but I profoundly disagree with them.
Clause 52 provides powers for the regulator and the franchising director, as appropriate, in order for them to obtain information if they believe an operator is contravening the terms of a licence, access agreement, franchise agreement or closure condition. I think it is right that they should have such powers. They would apply to BR only in circumstances where BR was suspected of contravening the terms of its licence, of a closure consent, or, indeed, of a franchise agreement. I doubt whether such a situation would be likely to arise, and I doubt whether BR should be afforded any special protection from the requirement to provide information if it did.
Clause 72 gives the franchising director powers to obtain information from the board, wholly owned subsidiaries of the board or network licence or station licence holders for the purpose of facilitating the performance of his functions under Part I of the Bill —the franchising of passenger services.
I should say at this point that, although the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, spoke to Amendment No. 124 when moving Amendment No. 109. much of Amendment No. 125ZA is equally pertinent to the discussion and I shall refer to that amendrnent in what I say now.
When franchising passenger services the franchising director will need to obtain information not only about the current cost of BR operating in shadow franchise form but also about the cost of access to the railway network in order to establish the full cost of providing a service. This will include the charges for access to track and to stations, which may be operated and charged for separately. He will need this information to prepare invitations to tender and also for the purpose of considering bids. The franchising director will also need information generated and collected by track operators in order to monitor franchisees' performance.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the regulator and the franchising director will not be able to pass on information to BR's competitors except where strictly necessary for the performance of their own functions. I refer the noble Lord to the restrictions in Clause 73.

1443
Clause 72 already contains two important safeguards against the misuse of this power by the franchising director. The first is in subsection (1), which limits the franchising director's powers explicitly to information he considers necessary for the purpose of facilitating his functions under this part of the Bill. The second is in subsection (5) which provides that no person shall be compelled to provide documents or furnish information which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings in the court.
I hope that the Committee will agree with me that it would be inappropriate for BR to withhold information from the franchising director on the grounds of commercial confidentiality which he needs to fulfil his statutory functions. My noble friend Lord Renton was absolutely right to draw attention to that earlier incident. All potential bidders for a franchise will need information on which to base their bids. Without this information there could be no sensible competition. The only source of that information is BR. With such a restriction on the provision of information, the chances of being able to hold a properly competitive franchise competition, as my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults said, would be nil. There would be no chance. Only BR would have access to the information necessary for compiling a tender. I hope that the Committee will agree with me that that cannot be right. The amendment would undermine the whole concept of franchising being a genuinely competitive process.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, for tabling the amendment because it clarifies the Labour Party's position. It does not want the private sector to have any say at all in the running of the railway.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I find the Minister's response both interesting and in many ways contradictory. Perhaps I may deal first with the Minister's last point. I put on record that the commitment of the Labour Party in assuming power at the time of the next general election is to return the railways, with the involvement of private sector finance, to public ownership. That is the position. My honourable friend John Prescott has placed that on record time and time again. It does not do the noble Earl any credit to seek to distort the position of the Labour Party. I can understand the reasons for that. I admit to my shame that I sometimes do it with the Conservative Party, but I have had great competition in recent months from the Conservative Party, which has distorted its own position. Therefore, I have been helped in that regard.
The Minister's answer was quite contradictory. If I were to table a Question tomorrow asking what level of grant—how much money—was made available to Toyota to set up in Derby, I should be told that that information is commercially confidential. I tried to obtain information about the level of finance which the Scottish Office offered to the Timex Corporation to encourage it to remain in Dundee and I was told that that information was commercially confidential.
1444
The Minister is saying that BR will have to reveal information which is commercially confidential. He went out of his way to say that it would be wrong for British Rail to hide behind the commercially confidential approach and refuse to reveal the information. Therefore, I find the Minister's position slightly contradictory, to say the least.
The intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was, with great respect, particularly unfortunate. The amendments do not suggest, I do not suggest and I do not believe that the Minister accepts that I suggest that British Rail, or any other company, should tell only half the truth. That was a rather unfortunate phrase, although I understand, with what has been going on in the City for the past four or five years, that Members of the Committee opposite now have reservations about the way in which certain people conduct their business in the City; but that is not a good reason for laying that charge against reputable organisations like the British Rail board. There is no question of trying to encourage British Rail to tell only half the truth.
Lord Renton: I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord makes those comments. The amendment that he proposes is perfectly clear. It entitles the board to withhold information. Therefore, what I said was completely relevant and justified.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The noble Lord and I will have to agree to differ on that because I honestly take the view that the comments were not justified. I wish to place that on the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, said that at least I was honest in saying that the amendments had been tabled before the Committee reversed the position in relation to the ability of BRB to tender for the franchise; that is absolutely true. However, the events of our earlier proceedings have altered the importance of the amendments. I shall not press the amendments to a vote today, but I give notice to the Minister that by the time we reach Report stage we shall be well into the autumn. By that time we shall have an indication from the Government as to what they intend to do, if they intend to do anything, in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that was carried earlier in our proceedings. I may well return to this matter on Report because I do not wish to see the British Rail board placed in a position in which it has to provide more detailed information than any other bidder for a franchise. That would not be a level playing field. I hate the expression "level playing field" but that would not be a level playing field. It would not be fair to say to British Rail that it must provide more information than any of its competitors.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord decides finally what to do with his amendment, I wish to make the position absolutely clear. With or without the amendment which the Committee agreed, I could not advise the Committee to accept this amendment now, on Report or on Third Reading. I have made it clear that the franchising director will not be able to

1445
pass on the information to BR's competitors except where strictly necessary for the performance of their functions.
I hope therefore that the noble Lord will decide now whether the amendment is worthy enough to test the opinion of the Committee. Regardless of the Government's decision on my noble friend's accepted amendment, BR will be the only place from which information can be obtained to enable the franchising director to fulfil his statutory obligations. Therefore, that information has to be given regardless of whether or not BR is a potential franchisee.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I notice that the Minister did not deal with the point about BR having to provide more information than a competitor. However, as I said, I should like to give the matter further thought and consideration. I may or may not return to it on Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: No!
6.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 109) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Marshall of Goring, L.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Desai, L.

Monson, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.[Teller.]

Eatwell, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Geraint, L.

Redesdale, L.

Glenamara, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Seear, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayter, L.

Stedman, B.

Henniker, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Boardman, L.

Amwell, L.

Bolton, L.

Arran, E.

Borthwick, L.

Astor, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Attlee, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Barber, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

BelofT, L.

Cadman, L.

Blake, L

Caithness, E.

Blatch, B.

Caldecote, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

1446

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of C'lashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carnock, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Milverton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mountevans L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Norrie, L.

Cranborne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prentice, L.

Elibank, L.

Quinton, L

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles.B.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ren wick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rodger of Earlslerry, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Davids, V.

Geddes, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sanderson of Bowden. L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandys, L.

Goold, L.

Savile, L.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, 8.

Granard, E.

Sharpies, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Stockton, F.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stodart of Leaston. L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathcarron. L

Harvington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

Sudeley, L.

Holderness, L.

Swansea, L.

Howe, E.

Swinton, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Killearn, L.

Trumpington, El.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden. L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Leigh, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Long, V.

Westbury, L

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.19 p.m.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Meaning and effect of railway administration order]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 61, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) in a manner which ensures the continued operation of passenger railway services.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I should like to make it quite plain that it is a probing amendment. I wish to reflect not only on the effect of Clause 53 but also on the whole question of enforcement of franchise conditions. We alluded to the matter earlier, and I believe that the Minister and I both agreed that it would be appropriate to deal with the point under the present clause.
I believe that the whole question of railway administration orders and the enforcement of conditions which are not a hundred miles apart from

1447
each other are replete with problems. I have previously—as has the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—alluded to some of the problems that we envisage. We see problems in the continuation of services. One can immediately see that in Clause 53 as it is drafted at present priority is given to the interests of shareholders and creditors of the failed railway company. However, it is important—the Minister will be the first to concede this —to protect the interests of passengers too. That has been the implicit argument that the Minister has alluded to on a number of previous occasions.
The Notes on Clauses state in relation to Clause 53 that the continuation of services is the main objective of the clause. Somehow or other the clause must—perhaps our amendment is not the most appropriate way of doing it—be tightened up, but the question is: can it be done in practice? How does one ensure that the continued operation of passenger railway services will take effect?
I see a weakness in the situation where a company is rendered insolvent or where there is a major breach of a franchising condition. The two situations are different and the Government are quite right in saying that discussions over the breach of a franchise are likely to take some considerable time as negotiations would be entered into. However, that depends on the nature of the breach. There may, for example, be a situation where the franchisee simply says that he cannot afford to conform with the condition that is being applied—it could relate to discounted fares, for example—and that he simply cannot break even. With all the good will in the world and with all the negotiations that may be put in hand, at the end of the day it is a matter of commercial judgment. The franchisee may say, "You can threaten me with prosecution and with anything you like but on a commercial basis I cannot conform to the condition that is being applied". That is that. What happens then?
I believe there is a serious gap in the way in which this whole argument has been developed. Therefore, in a number of cases, but not in all, it is bound to be immensely difficult for some services to continue to be operated. At the end of the day will it be British Rail that will be expected to fill the gap? But is that practical? A franchise may have been operating for a number of years and British Rail may have withdrawn from that service. It may not have the expertise, or even the will in the circumstances, to run the service unless provision can be made by way of PSO grant. However, I do not believe that even that will necessarily be sufficient. British Rail could therefore be placed in a most invidious position and may not wish to take up the service in question, or feel capable of doing so.
If that situation were to obtain, there can be little doubt that the cost of running the service—in an emergency, so to speak—would fall on the taxpayer to a greater extent than if the current situation continued to prevail. It may be that because of the situation that emerged the other night we shall not be faced with this. That is why in some respects it is unsatisfactory
1448
that we are debating these issues against that backcloth. However, we have to be prepared for the possibility that the Government may try to reverse the situation.
I am deeply worried that the railway administration order and all the enforcement provisions which relate to earlier parts of the Bill will not in practical terms be capable of dealing with the continuation of services in certain instances, and possibly in certain major instances. We cannot hypothesize about all those situations, but if we are to have this Bill in the form that the Government want, it is right that we deal with this matter. I accord with the Government's interests in this respect but I do not see how the matter will work out in practice. The Government will have to go a good deal further in giving assurances on how these provisions will work out than they have thus far.
I do not know the Government's thinking on this matter other than what is set out in the Notes on Clauses. I hope that by my asking these questions at this stage the Minister will be able to give certain reassurances on this matter. It is only for that purpose that I raise this amendment at this time. These are important matters. It is the provision of services for passengers and communities that is at stake. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: There is nothing between the noble Lord and the Government on this point. In the unfortunate event of a situation occurring such as he described, we both want to see that practical, workable arrangements are in place to ensure there is no loss of service.
Clause 53(2) defines the purposes for which a railway administration order may be made. These are to provide for the transfer to another company or companies as a going concern of so much of the undertaking of the company under the order as is necessary to ensure that the "relevant activities" may be carried on and to provide for the carrying on of those relevant activities pending the making of the transfer. The "relevant activities" are defined in subsection (5) (b), which states:
"in the case of a company which is the holder of a passenger licence, the carriage of passengers by railway; or in the case of a company which is the holder of a network licence, a station licence or a light maintenance depot licence, the management of a network, a station or a light maintenance depot, according to the description of licence in question".
So for a passenger operator subject to a railway administration order the purpose of the order would be to secure the continued provision of passenger services. For a station operator it would be for the continued operation of the station and so on. The purpose of the special railway administration order regime is wholly aimed at providing for the continued provision of necessary passenger services in terms of continued operation of the trains, the track, the stations and the light maintenance depots involved should any of the operators of those services or facilities become insolvent or should they be about to become insolvent.
If the franchisee is in breach of a franchise agreement it will be open to the franchising director to terminate the agreement. In that case under Clause 26 he will be under a duty to secure the provision of those

1449
services until they are refranchised. The franchising director then has powers under Clause 43 to enter into agreement with railway operators to provide services. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was right to say that it might not necessarily be British Rail which will be called upon by the franchising director to operate a service in the event of a railway administration order. As was mentioned the other night, the railway operator might be Clinton-Davis Railways plc. That company might be the most suitable company to take on the service as it would be a highly reputable, soundly based and financially solvent company. I have no doubt of that. However, it may well be that in order to achieve the continuation of the passenger service the franchising director will turn to whoever he thinks is the best person to provide that service.
Of course, there is the question of the relevant assets. We spoke earlier about the power of the franchising director to ask a future franchisee to take on a lease of rolling stock. I said that I would look at that point again. But by those various means we believe that we have provided for the continuation of passenger services in the event of a franchisee becoming insolvent or being about to become insolvent.
At this point I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the government amendments which we shall deal with in the near future. They are basically technical amendments but they are designed to strengthen these provisions and to make sure that they are workable.
I fear that the noble Lord may still have some anxiety. My door is open. I should be very happy for the noble Lord to come in and to discuss these matters with me. We are discussing a somewhat hypothetical situation which might be better dealt with in the office.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am very grateful to the Minister. When I come to see him can I come with the entire company—Clinton-Davis plc?
The Earl of Caithness: Provided the noble Lord brings his franchise agreement with him, that will be welcome.
Lord Clinton-Davis: There will be no difficulty in persuading the franchising director to grant my company a franchising agreement.
The Minister has not satisfied me in relation to the practicalities. One is likely to be dealing with an emergency. Where a franchisee has failed, perhaps through no fault of his own, who is likely to want to fill that position immediately, particularly in the context of running a railway franchise, which is a fairly newly conceived operation? I believe that in practical terms it would be extremely difficult to imagine any party other than British Rail coming in. Even British Rail could have immense difficulty in continuing the operation of a service under those conditions. It would be bound to impact on other operations. After all, according to the Government's plans, BR will be a service of last resort in any event. Here it would have to attempt a rescue operation. How would it go about that? The franchising director
1450
has limited resources. He has a budget which is available for a variety of purposes, but to what extent will it be available to help mount a rescue operation? What impact would that have on the franchising director's duties in other regards?
There are major implications here, and I do not believe that this situation can be equated with an ordinary business failure. In that case there is a liquidation, or a receiver continues to operate a business under certain conditions or there is an administration order. These are different circumstances. Here we are making provision for filling in for what has become a monopoly service but one which has been transferred to the private sector.
Whatever meetings may take place between the Minister and myself—and I am always glad to see him and shall he more than happy to take up his offer—even if he satisfied me, I doubt very much whether he would satisfy the railway community at large. I am not a great expert on matters of insolvency but I perceive real difficulties here. I hope that the Minister will be able to reflect further on the matter before Report. stage. Perhaps he can satisfy me. I hope that he can.
Having said that, I conclude by saying that I am grateful to the Minister for being very open about the situation. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 61, line 43, leave out from ("to") to ("as") in line 44 and insert ("the Board").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to give some emphasis to the difficulties that have arisen in relation to the operation of administration orders. First, there is the possible loss through bankruptcy or insolvency of the network element, which is the main virtue of British Rail. There is also the question of retention of assets and equipment within the British Rail family. The third point is the maintenance of consistent safety standards during the transition period.
I stress that it will and should be the responsibility of BRB to run services which are not franchised. Therefore, it seems only logical that the board should retain the assets and the network facility should a franchisee go under. If assets which were crucial to the smooth running of the railway network were to become embroiled in rows with creditors of a defunct operator, the worst possible scenario would develop. The natural balance of branch lines feeding passengers into main lines could well be broken and the living railway could be cut off from its source. stilled into decline and ultimately into decay. Therefore, for the sake of an interest repayment the company is lost; for the sake of a company the franchise is lost; for the sake of the franchise the line is lost; and for the sake of the line the railways are lost. It is not fanciful to put the matter in those terms.
We highlight this aspect of the Bill in order to demonstrate that the fears of nearly all the customer and staff organisations are well founded. Those anxieties have been well expressed to us arid I am sure that they have been expressed to the Minister.
So far as concerns safety standards the Minister has accepted the Health and Safety Executive's considerations about safety in relation to the Bill. We are happy that he has done so. However, handing over an ongoing operation to another company on a temporary basis is far from satisfactory even if that company holds a licence. I wonder to what extent that situation has been contemplated by the Health and Safety Executive. I fear that I have not had time to look into that element of the matter. Perhaps the Minister could let us have his views.
We say that the BRB should take over such operations, with additional funding provided by the Secretary of State, because it will not be satisfactory simply to leave it to the franchising director and his budget.
Again, I am seeking to elicit from the Minister his thinking about these matters. It is not my intention to divide the Committee. If he sought to negative the matter I would say "So be it" on this occasion. I hope that he will not because I am seeking simply to gain some further information from him this evening about this crucial element of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I agree with the noble Lord that this is a crucial area of the Bill. It is important that we get it right and I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters in the Committee and at later stages if necessary.
I am not sure that there is very much that I can add to what I said in relation to the previous amendment. With this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wants to make British Rail the only party which could take on a passenger service in the event of an emergency. I concede to the noble Lord that initially BR will have the stock, capacity, expertise and wide distribution to be the prime choice to fill in in an emergency. However, there may come a time in the future, when the franchises have proved the success that we believe that they can be, when there are many franchisees other than British Rail. It would then seem illogical for the board to be the only party which could step in in such a situation.
I believe that the flexibility in the Bill which provides for the franchising director to go either to BR or to another franchise operator is the logical option. It will help the franchising director to fulfil his obligation to continue the passenger service.
The franchising director will obviously have to operate very quickly in such circumstances. Therefore the greater discretion and flexibility that we can give the franchising director, the better. I believe that it would be better therefore to stick with the words in the Bill which give the franchising director the choice of BR or another franchising operator rather than tying it solely to BR.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister. Clearly the issue will form part of the discussion between us. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. I lOB:
Page 62, line 7, at end insert:
( ) Without prejudice to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to this Act, the power conferred by section 411 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to make rules shall apply for the purpose of giving effect to the railway administration order provisions of this Act as it applies for the purpose of giving effect to Parts I to VII of that Act, but taking any reference in that section to those Parts as a reference to those provisions.").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 110C to 110E, 110G, 110J to 110T inclusive, 110AF to 110AL inclusive, and 110AQ. At first flush, the amendments look like a large raft of amendments changing the Bill quite substantially. As I said earlier, they are largely technical but nonetheless important amendments. They will help to ensure that the railway administration order procedure applies effectively to the operation of all protected railway companies in Great Britain and thus provides for the continuity of essential passenger services which, as we know from the last two amendments, all Members of the Committee are seeking. If the Committee wish me to go into detail on any of the amendments I shall do so. However, considering their technicality, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 110C:
Page 62, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert:
(""the court", in the case of any protected railway company, means the court having jurisdiction to wind up the company;
"the railway administration order provisions of this Act" means this section, sections 54 to 58 and (Application of the railway administration order provisions to unregistered, unlimited or foreign companies) below and Schedules 5 and 6 to this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Railway administration orders]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 110D and 110E:
Page 141, line 21, leave out from second ("administrator") to end of line 24.
Page 141, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 36.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 110F:
Page 141, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 142 and insert:
("(b) if the company is the holder of a passenger licence under Part I of the Railways Act 1993, by the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising with the consent of the Secretary of State;").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 110H, 110U, 110W to 110Z inclusive, 110AA to 110AE inclusive, 110AM and 1 IOAN.
This group of amendments alters the scope of the railway administration order procedure, the way in which railway administration orders are applied for and the persons who may apply for them.
On reflection, we concluded that the situation in which a licence would be revoked would not occur overnight, and that there will be sufficient forewarning to enable the franchising director to make alternative arrangements for the provision of any services run by the licensee which he considers to be essential. The special provisions of Clauses 53 to 58 will not be necessary in those circumstances.
The railway administration order regime is therefore now to apply only in the case of insolvency, and not in the case of breach of a licence or failure to abide by the provisions of enforcement orders made under Clauses 49 to 52 of the Bill. This involves mainly the deletion of Clause 54(2)(a) and (b).
In refining our policy we have concluded that a railway administration order should be made only on the application of the Secretary of State or, in the case of a protected railway company which is the holder of a passenger licence, the franchising director, with the consent of the Secretary of State. It is no longer proposed that the regulator should have any functions under the railway administration order regime. That is entirely appropriate, since unlike the franchising director, the regulator will have no role in securing the provision of services, is not to be a "competent authority" for the purposes of securing socially necessary rail services under EC law, and will therefore have no subsidy budget. It would be inappropriate for him to have a role in the making of applications for railway administration orders when he has no role in funding or procuring such services.
Lastly, the railway administration order procedure (and the prohibition on winding up, etc.) is no longer to come into play automatically in the case of a protected railway company, but is to be dependent in all cases on the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the franchising director making an application to the court for a railway administration order. This will allow the Secretary of State or the franchising director to take a view on the merit of maintaining the services of the insolvent company, and of choosing not to apply for an order if this seems unnecessary or undesirable.
That change in no way diminishes our commitment to continue to secure socially necessary services, and to safeguard the railway facilities—stations, networks and light maintenance depots—necessary for the running of those services. Let me be absolutely clear on that. However, it does recognise that unnecessary expense could be incurred in invoking the railway administration order procedure when there was really no need to do so. For example, it may be that an open access operator has been particularly successful at securing a sizeable market share since the franchise in question was first let, and is providing adequate alternative transport services to those of the franchisee. Alternatively, there may be two light maintenance depots in competition with one another, one of which has become insolvent, whilst the remaining depot is able to meet the light maintenance
1454
requirements of train operators. In those cases, there may well be no need to apply the railway administration regime procedures.
I commend these amendments to the Committee:.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I shall certainly read with care what he said, and the helpful letter that he sent to my colleagues and myself on 5th July. However. the Minister may be a little optimistic when he states that the question of breaches of the franchising conditions will not occur suddenly. I believe that some breaches could occur suddenly. A company might be advised that it would be trading while insolvent if it were to continue with certain uncommercial activities including, for example, some aspect associated with the conditions of the franchise.
The Minister may be right in stating that it would not occur generally in that way. I believe that he incorporated the word "generally" in his remarks. It is certainly in the letter. I believe that there could be circumstances in which such a breach could occur suddenly. There is no point in reiterating the argument because it refers back to the earlier debate. If such a breach were to occur, a serious situation could arise.
The Minister and I will discuss the issue. I do not wish to prolong the debate. However, what he said in that respect was not wholly in keeping with what might be the practicalities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 110G:
Page 142, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 110H:
Page 143, line 7, leave out from ("or") to end of line 14 and insert ("if the company is the holder of a passenger licence under Part I of the Railways Act 1993, by the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising with the consent of the Secretary of State,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 110J to 110T:
Page 143, line 23, leave out ("(i) if the company is a limited company,").
Page 143, line 25, leave out from ("companies"") I to second ("and") in line 27.
Page 143, line 30, leave out ("(i) if the company is a limited company,").
Page 143, line 31, leave out from ("companies"") to end of line 33.
Page 143, line 40, leave out ("(i) if the company is a limited company,").
Page 143, line 42, leave out from ("companies"") to second ("and") in line 44.
Page 143, line 47, leave out ("(i) if the company is a limited company,").
Page 143, line 48, leave out from ("companies") to end of line 50.
Page 144, line 18, leave out from ("(e)") to ("to") in line 20.
Page 144, line 40, leave out from ("(e)") to ("the") in line 41.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 110U:
Page 145, line 6, leave out from ("or") to end of line 12 and insert ("if the company is the holder of a passenger licence under Part I of the Railways Act 1993, the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising with the consent of the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 110V:
Page 145, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert:
("(1C) Where an application is made under subsection (1) in respect of a company in relation to which a railway administration order is in force—

(a) notice of the application shall be given to the Secretary of State; and

(b) he shall be entitled to be heard by the court in connection with that application."

(3) Subsection (3) (order not to prejudice or prevent voluntary arrangements or administrator's proposals) shall be omitted.
(4) In subsection (4)(provision that may be made in an order), the words "Subject as above" shall be omitted and for paragraph (d)there shall be substituted—
"(d) without prejudice to the powers exercisable by the court in making a railway administration order—

(i) provide that the railway administration order is to be discharged as from such date as may be specified in the order unless, before that date, such measures are taken as the court thinks fit for the purpose of protecting the interests of creditors; and

(ii) make such consequential provision as the court thinks fit."

(5) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted—
"(6) Where a railway administration order is discharged in consequence of such provision in an order under this section as is mentioned in subsection (4) (d) (i), the special railway administrator shall, within 14 days after the date on which the discharge takes effect, send an office copy of the order under this section—

(a) to the Rail Regulator;

(b) to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, if the company is the holder of a passenger licence under Part I of the Railways Act 1993; and

(c) to the registrar of companies;

and if, without reasonable excuse, the special railway administrator fails to comply with this subsection, he is liable to a fine and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine."").
The noble Earl said: The amendment should be warmly welcomed by the Committee since it is aimed at protecting the interests of the creditors of a railway company subject to a railway administration order.
The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the creditors of a company do not lose out because of the making of a railway administration order. They should not be in any worse position than they would have been had the company not been a protected railway company—that is to say, had normal insolvency procedures run their course. That is only right and proper. Securing the continued provision of passenger services is a public policy goal; but the interests of creditors should not be ousted by that policy goal.
The amendment therefore provides that on the application of a creditor of a company in respect of
1456
which a railway administration order has been made, the court should be able to grant relief in the form of an order discharging the railway administration order unless specified steps are taken for the protection of creditors' interests. That might include the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers to make grants and loans to the insolvent company under Clause 57 of the Bill. I believe that this measure will be of great help in encouraging investment in the rail industry, particularly in rolling stock. For that reason alone I believe that the Committee will welcome the amendment. I commend it to the Committee and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Transitional provision on transfer of relevant activities]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 110W to 110Z:
Page 146, leave out lines 21 to 29.
Page 146, line 47, leave out ("the appropriate authority") and insert ("in a case where the existing appointee is a protected railway company by virtue of section 53(5)(a)(i) of this Act, by the Franchising Director.").
Page 147, line 2, leave out ("appropriate authority") and insert ("Franchising Director,").
Page 147, line 19, leave out ("appropriate authority") and insert ("Franchising Director,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 110AA and 110AB:
Page 147, line 28, leave out ("the appropriate authority") and insert ("in a case where the existing appointee is a protected railway company by virtue of section 53(5)(a)(i) of this Act, the Franchising Director").
Page 148, line 3, leave out ("the appropriate authority") and insert ("in a case where the existing appointee is a protected railway company by virtue of section 53(5)(a)(i) of this Act, of the Franchising Director.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Railway administration orders made on special petitions]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 110AC to 110AL:
Page 62, leave out lines 30 to 36 and insert:
("(b) if the petition relates to a protected railway company which is the holder of a passenger licence, by the Franchising Director with the consent of the Secretary of State,").
Page 62, line 37, leave out ("any one or more") and insert ("either or both").
Page 62, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 63.
Page 63, line 12, leave out ("440 of the Companies Act 1985") and insert ("124A of the 1986 Act").
Page 63, line 20, leave out ("Insolvency Act 1986 ("the 1986 Act")") and insert ("1986 Act").
Page 63, line 26, leave out ("and (4)") and insert ("(4) and (5)").
Page 63, line 40, leave out ("limited").
Page 63, line 43, after ("company") insert ("within the meaning of Part V of the 1986 Act,").
Page 63, line 47, after ("section") insert: (""the 1986 Act" means the Insolvency Act 1986;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Power to make railway administration order on winding-up petition]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 110AM:
Leave out Clause 55 and insert the following new clause:
Restriction on making winding-up order in respect of protected railway company
(".—(1) Where a petition for the winding up of a protected railway company is presented by a person other than the Secretary of State, the court shall not make a winding-up order in relation to that company on that petition unless—

(a) notice of the petition has been served on—

(i) the Secretary of State; and

(ii) the Franchising Director, if the protected railway company is the holder of a passenger licence: and

(b) a period of at least fourteen days has elapsed since the service of that notice.

(2) Where a petition for the winding up of a protected railway company has been presented—

(a) the Secretary of State, or

(b) if the company is the holder of a passenger licence, the Franchising Director with the consent of the Secretary of State,

may, at any time before a winding-up order is made on the petition. make an application to the court for a railway administration order in relation to that company; and where such an application is made the court may, if it is satisfied as mentioned in section 54(1) above, make a railway administration order instead of a winding-up order.
(3) Where, on a petition for the winding up of a protected railway company, the court makes, or proposes to make, a railway administration order by virtue of subsection (2) above. subsections (4) and (5) of section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (powers on application for administration order) shall apply on the hearing of that petition as they apply on the hearing of a petition for an administration order.
(4) In this section "the court" has the same meaning as in section 53 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [Restrictions on voluntary winding up and insolvency proceedings in the case of protected railway companies]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 110AN:
Leave out Clause 56 and insert the following new clause:
Restrictions on voluntary winding up and insolvency proceedings in the case of protected railway companies
(" .—(1) No resolution for voluntary winding up shall be passed by a protected railway company without leave of the court granted on an application made for the purpose by the company.
(2) No such leave shall be granted unless—

(a) notice of the application has been served on—

(i) the Secretary of State; and

(ii) the Franchising Director, if the protected railway company is the holder of a passenger licence; and

(b) a period of at least fourteen days has elapsed since the service of that notice.

(3) Where an application for leave under subsection (1) above has been made by a protected railway company—

(a) the Secretary of State, or

(b) if the company is the holder of a passenger licence, the Franchising Director with the consent of the Secretary of State,

may, at any time before leave has been granted under subsection (1) above, make an application to the court for a railway administration order in relation to that company; and where such an application is made the court may, if it is
1458
satisfied as mentioned in section 54(1) above, make a railway administration order instead of granting leave under subsection (1) above.
(4) Where, on an application for leave under subsection (1) above, the court makes, or proposes to make, a railway administration order by virtue of subsection (3) above, subsections (4) and (5) of section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (powers on application for administration order) shall apply on the hearing of that application as they apply on the hearing of a petition for an administration order.
(5) No administration order under Part II of the Insolvency Act 1986 shall be made in relation to a protected railway company unless—

(a) notice of the application for the order has been served on—

(i) the Secretary of State; and

(ii) the Franchising Director, if the protected railway company is the holder of a passenger licence; and

(b) a period of at least fourteen days has elapsed since the service of that notice.

(6) Where an application for an administration order under Part II of the Insolvency Act 1986 has been made in the case of a protected railway company—

(a) the Secretary of State, or

(b) if the company is the holder of a passenger licence, the Franchising Director with the consent of the Secretary of State,

may, at any time before such an order has been made on that application, make an application to the court for a railway administration order in relation to that company; and where such an application is made the court may, if it is satisfiecl as mentioned in section 54(1) above, make a railway administration order instead of an administration order under Part II of the Insolvency Act 1986.
(7) No step shall be taken by any person to enforce any security over a protected railway company's property, except where that person has served fourteen days' notice of his intention to take that step on—

(a) the Secretary of State; and

(b) the Franchising Director, if the company is the holder of a passenger licence.

(8) In this section—
"the court" has the same meaning as in section 53 above;
"resolution for voluntary winding up" has the same meaning as in the Insolvency Act 1986;
"security" and "property" have the same meaning as in the Insolvency Act 1986.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Government financial assistance where railway administration orders made]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 110AP:
Page 65, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 110.AP we are probing the Government's intentions. Although the amendment has been put clown relative to Clause 57, it is of a more general purpose. In approving the estimates every year, Parliament provides implicitly for aggregate sums of expenditure by each department of state. The departmental budget then reflects the Government's policy priorities in that specific area, again presumably prescribing reasonable maxima under each expenditure heading.
In future, we expect that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to make rather greater provision; first, because all informed comment so far expects the cost of franchises to rise, certainly in the initial part of the operation of this scheme, should it begin to operate at all, and that it will rise above the present PSO payment to British Rail. The Minister seemed to

1459
concede that point the other day; or seemed at least (I do not want to be unfair to him) to concede that there was that possibility. Secondly, contingency provision will have to be made for additional payments, such as the grants to be made under this clause. But the important matter is that the Secretary of State will have a sum to spend on railways. Our argument is that any amounts that he does not use should sensibly be applied to developing the railway system.
Throughout the Bill one sees (as in subsection (5)) these words:
"shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund".
That applies whenever a revenue or repayment is mentioned. I am trying to make the point that money voted for transport and applied to the railways should be used for that purpose and should not be recycled to the Treasury. It is of course the hypothecation argument. But there is a different scenario in the new system which the Government seek to develop here. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us—not give us an assurance; I do not for one moment believe that he will concede this point tonight—how he believes these issues can be properly dealt with. It is to that extent therefore that this is purely a probing amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, speaking on this amendment. I do not think anybody is more eloquent at wishing to change Treasury rules than art ex-Minister. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is not in his place, because the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis was a Minister in another place. Had the noble Lord at that stage submitted an idea such as this, the rap on his knuckles from his Chief Secretary would have been painful.
I have to say to the noble Lord that I can offer him no hope on this particular amendment. As he knows, it is standard government accounting practice for the repayments of any grants and loans to go back to the Consolidated Fund, however nice it would be for a Secretary of State to be able to hold on to them. They come from the Consolidated Fund in the first place, and that is where they would return.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have a belief that the Government will have to eat their words in a number of respects. I have a belief that there will be the development of hypothecation on quite a substantial scale, even in the life-time of this Government, which may not be very long. I suspect that there will be a good deal of rethinking. One can allude to discussions that have taken place very reasonably in relation to environmental arguments and in relation to a whole area of road transport. The argument about hypothecation is by no means as fanciful as the Minister has suggested.
I shall not press this matter, nor shall I return to it at Report stage. But the Government should not be quite so certain about this issue as the Minister seemed to imply. However, I shall not prolong the issue now. So far as concerns my previous incarnation, the
1460
Minister is probably right in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett (the noble Lord is not here) or anybody else for that matter. We had arguments—all governments have arguments—claiming that hypothecation is an appropriate way of going about such issues. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, probably had arguments raised with him about hypothecation. But the scenario is changing to some extent. Whether it would ever be appropriate in this particular context, I could not be sure. I have said that I wish to withdraw the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will let me do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 110AQ:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
Application of the railway administration order provisions to unregistered, unlimited or foreign companies
(" .—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any reference in the railway administration order provisions of this Act to a "company" includes a reference to any body corporate.
(2) In the application of section 53(1) above in a case where the protected railway company there mentioned is a foreign company, the reference to the affairs, business and property of the company shall be taken as a reference to the affairs and business of the company, so far as carried on in Great Britain, and the property of the company within Great Britain.
(3) In the application of section 9(5) of the 1986 Act by virtue of subsection (4) of section 54 above where the company mentioned in that subsection is a foreign company, the reference to restricting the exercise of any powers of the directors or of the company shall be taken as a reference to restricting—

(a) the exercise within Great Britain of the powers of the directors or of the company; or

(b) any exercise of those powers so far as relating to the affairs, business or property of the company in Great Britain.

(4) In the application of provisions in section 10 of the 1986 Act by virtue of subsection (5) of section 54 above where the company mentioned in that subsection is a foreign company—

(a) paragraph (a) of subsection (I) shall be omitted;

(b) any reference in paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection to property or goods shall he taken as a reference to property or (as the case may be) goods for the time being situated within Great Britain;

(c) the reference in paragraph (c) of that subsection to the levying of distress against the company shall be taken as a reference to the levying of distress against the foreign company to the extent of its property in England and Wales; and

(d) any reference in subsection (2) to an administrative receiver shall be taken to include a reference to any person performing, in relation to the foreign company, functions equivalent to those of an administrative receiver, within the meaning of section 251 of the 1986 Act.

(5) Subsections (1) to (4) of section 56 above shall not have effect in relation to a protected railway company which is a foreign company.
(6) In the application of subsection (7) of that section where the protected railway company there mentioned is a foreign company, the reference to the company's property shall he taken as a reference to such of its property as is for the time being situated in Great Britain.
(7) In this section—
"the 1986 Act" means the Insolvency Act 1986;
"foreign company" means a company incorporated outside Great Britain; and

1461
"the railway administration order provisions of this Act" means sections 53 to 58 above, this section and Schedules 5 and 6 to this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Amendments of the Fair Trading Act 1973]:
7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 110AR:
Page 66, line 7, leave out ("subsection (2A)") and insert ("subsections (2A) and (213)").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 110AS to 110AU, which deal with monopoly and merger references.
These amendments seek to deal with the concern felt by a number of bus operators, who, under suitable conditions, may be interested in operating franchises, that they may be precluded from so doing by virtue of their business carrying more than 25 per cent. of the total number of public transport journeys or passenger miles in a significant area of the United Kingdom.
That situation would be undesirable, since the development of multi-modal passenger transport businesses needs to be encouraged in order to foster co-ordination, help control the growth of traffic and congestion and alleviate pollution from road vehicles. Large and successful bus companies which would have available the resources to take on franchises are already likely to control significant shares of the local public transport market in the franchise area. But, as public transport in total is only around 12 per cent. of the national travel market (86 per cent. is by car), removing the possibility of a monopoly reference at the time of granting a franchise is unlikely to confer significant additional possibilities of exploiting monopoly powers. The amendments simply preclude a monopoly reference just because a bus operator has successfully obtained a franchise.
The further amendments in my name seek to address a problem that has caused considerable anxiety in the application of competition law to the deregulated bus industry; namely, the conditions under which a monopoly of public passenger transport services exists. I should like to make a number of points in that respect.
Public transport services do not compete only with other public transport services. In circumstances in which the overall share of journeys by motorised modes is only 5½ per cent. for railways and 6½ per cent. for buses and coaches, compared with almost 86 per cent. for cars, it is evident that the market for public transport is very small. We do not dispute that at certain times and places—for example, commuting periods in the cities—those shares look very different. But the days of good living from railways are, regrettably, far behind us, if indeed they ever existed—a view to which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, alluded in an earlier debate. The fact is that most passenger flows by bus and train are inadequate to sustain even a single operator, as is acknowledged by the extensive provision of subsidies. Applying the normal monopoly rule of one-quarter share of a
1462
significant area is a very large hammer to use on an insignificant nut. We need to control monopoly but the situation has to be kept in proportion.
The Government want to encourage bus operators to become involved in the provision of franchised rail services. Only those with large assets bases will have the power and strength to do so. That will almost certainly mean that they already control well in excess of 25 per cent. of the market for passenger transport in their home areas. As it stands, Clause 59 is likely to rule out joint operation of rail and bus services by companies, which is a development that should be encouraged as a means of developing services to combat congestion and environmental pollution.
With this amendment we suggest that a proportion of 90 per cent. of the total public transport market, which in most areas will be rather less than 25 per cent. of the total travel market, would be a more appropriate benchmark. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: We welcome the fact that many bus companies have expressed an interest. in bidding to run franchised passenger rail services. We believe that there could well be benefits for passengers from a bus company running a rail franchise so as to provide reliable connecting services. That is the kind of benefit we all want to see.
The Government are very much aware of the anxieties that existing passenger transport operators, particularly the bus operators, have voiced about the risk of their bids being referred to the MMC, not because of the way they plan to operate services, but because of the uncertainty that the possibility of referral creates for them.
It is not possible for me to give a blanket assurance that particular operations will never be investigated by the competition authorities. I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to do so. Our policy for involving the private sector in running the railway through franchising is based on our desire to end the BR monopoly and promote competition. That is why we want the normal provisions of competition law to apply, as far as possible, to the privatised railway. That is what this clause is about.
I believe that the key point to keep in sight is that prospective bidders who are genuinely interested in running services that benefit the customer should have no fear about taking on a passenger franchise and running it in that way. It is anti-competitive, anti-passenger practices that we must. and will guard against.
Nevertheless, there is doubt in the bus operators' minds about how the Office of Fair Trading might exercise its powers to make, and advise on, references. We have drawn to operators' attention the fact that, where a bidder was concerned that by winning a rail franchise he would become liable to a referral to the MMC to see whether such a merger was against the public interest, it would, as with all mergers, be open to him to approach the OFT at the outset. The OFT is able, on a confidential and non-binding basis, to provide advice on whether or not the prospective acquisition of a rail franchise would be likely to be

1463
referred to the MMC. This is a useful procedure and prospective bidders would be wise to contact the OFT at an early stage.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, take a rather radical approach to the problem. Their effect would be to ensure that a monopoly situation would simply not exist where a bus operator had won a rail franchise, and that the market share test for a merger reference to be made would he raised from one-quarter of the market to nine-tenths. I can see two problems.
First, should a bus operator win a franchise, a contract which may run for several years, it is possible that he will start out with the best of intentions but could, over time, begin to exert his dominance in the public transport market in a particular town or area in a way that did not serve passengers' interests. I do not say that that would happen, just that it could. The franchising director might be able to protect the rail passengers through the terms of the franchise agreement. But who would protect the bus passengers? Who would be in a position to look at the totality of the public transport market? Should a reference to the MMC be ruled out indefinitely, as the noble Lord's amendment would provide?
Secondly, on mergers, the one-quarter market share threshold is well established in English competition law. The Committee will know that one does not have to control 90 per cent. of a market in order to have significant market power.
The root of the concerns which these amendments raise is not so much the application of competition law, which is designed to protect the consumer, as the uncertainty of referral for bus operators and others. The Government are therefore reflecting further, in the light of the noble Lord's amendments, to see what might be done to provide greater clarity. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Public Transport has discussed the issues with bus operators, and with colleagues in the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry. He plans further discussions over the summer. I am therefore prepared to take the noble Lord's proposed amendments away and consider, without commitment, whether we might be able to address the issues they raise by amending the Bill or by other means.
I accept that there is competition between public transport and the private car. But for some sections of the population, including, as the noble Lord mentioned, commuters into urban areas, some disabled people and those who cannot afford to run a car, that choice is not available. So it makes sense to consider separately the market for public transport when looking at the question of monopoly power.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is an extremely helpful reply. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect further on the matter. I accept entirely that it would be wrong for him to enter into any commitment at this stage to come back with the certainty of an amendment along those lines. Personally, I do not believe that our amendment answers all the problems. The Minister dealt with that very convincingly in his reply. He is quite right to say
1464
that a situation could develop—it is by no means inconceivable —in which there could be an abuse of a dominant position. That is something which must be dealt with in the discussions which are to take place. I am sure that those representing the interests of the bus industry will make their position clear. They need to answer the point raised by the Minister. It is no good continuing with discussions unless they take on board the personal views expressed by the Minister on the other side of the argument.
I am delighted that the Minister, together with the DTI, the OFT and the industry have undertaken those considerations. Perhaps during the Recess, in which period I suppose the discussions will take place, and prior to Report stage—without divulging too much and certainly nothing that he would regard as confidential—the Minister could keep myself and my colleagues in touch with what is happening in the negotiations. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110AS to 110AU not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage on the Bill be resumed not before 10 minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Identity Card Scheme
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider introducing a national identity card scheme.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, because of the large number of speakers in tonight's one-hour debate, I shall not go into any great detail regarding the proposed scheme to introduce national identity cards. The honourable Member for Basildon has a Private Member's Bill in another place and has been most helpful in advising me on the many aspects of such a scheme.
Technology already exists for a Smart card as proposed in the Association of Chief Police Officers' paper published in May. That card, with the basic identity within, can be rendered tamper proof and technologically secured. As all the information is on the card there is no centre base, which should satisfy those concerned with civil liberties.
With a multinational card that positively links the bearer with the information, details such as social security number, banking, organ donor status and so forth, could be included. The ACPO wishes to make the system voluntary because then it would not require an extension of police powers and the police would not have the power to demand production of the card. Anxieties in regard to oppressive demands on minorities would not arise.
In 1989 reaction to a national identity card was, to say the least, lukewarm, but today a rising crime rate,

1465
fraud and drug offences have made the police and the general public alter their views radically. I feel that we should respond to those concerns.
The estimated cost of setting up a scheme is £250 million; but that need not be borne by the Government. A number of firms are ready with a product; and surely there is also a vast market in Europe where cards in nine countries are either compulsory or voluntary but not, as I understand it, tamper-proof.
Can the Minister say why, if the DVLA under a European directive must produce licences with photographs, followed in 1999 with a mag stripe containing the vehicle number and offences, other government departments cannot follow the same path? I hear also that the DVLA is selling its computer facilities to a third party, as is the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. Would it not be possible for an overall plan to be produced in this age of advanced technology?
Because of the obvious complexity and the need to explore practicalities, the thrust of contemporary arguments should be on the necessity for the Home Office to set up an independent body to look into the whole matter of voluntary identity cards. It has police support on grounds of identification and helping to combat crime. The costs perhaps cannot be properly estimated until an independent report is issued. Speculative figures of £250 million have been bandied about in relation to compulsory cards.
It is a new and exciting prospect with enormous potential. I therefore urge the Minister to give a lead arid to press forward with such a national identity card scheme. I thank in advance all noble Lords who are to speak, for contributing to this short debate. I am grateful for their interest in this important Question.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I believe that the introduction of an identity card scheme is inevitable. It will be voluntary to begin with, I suppose, but mandatory to follow. Already within the European Community eight countries have ID card schemes and in five the possession of an identity card is mandatory. It is becoming a common European practice, and in keeping with harmonisation it will in due course be a normal practice here.
Why do the Government balk at its introduction? Indeed, the carrying of an ID card is becoming a necessity and accepted as such. Most large industrial and business enterprises request their employees to be so recognised. For example, the Civil Service has over 500.000 card carriers; British Gas, one company, has 80,000; in this Parliament building over 12,000 persons carry identity cards; and then there are the police and our armed forces.
The Association of Payment Clearing Services revealed that two years ago 73 per cent. of all adults had some form of plastic card, including credit cards and cheque cards. On the test of public opinion the last survey showed that 67 per cent. were in favour and only 20 per cent. against; even a poll of trade unionists showed 53 per cent. in favour. The vast majority of
1466
our people are now conditioned to ID card usage. On the questions of privacy and civil liberties most fears seem to have been allayed.
The Police Federation is in favour of a mandatory card scheme, as are the Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. 'They would support its introduction by the Home Office. Why does the Home Office refuse? Have not the Police Federation pointed out that there has been a massive rise in crime—drug smuggling, fraud and forgery. Crime has never been so prolific, so diverse in variety and so frightful in its lack of concern for life and property. In that atmosphere there is no point in complaining about the denial of democracy. Street rapes of women and children in broad daylight, muggers and armed robberies galore are a much bigger denial of democracy than an identity card.
The police believe that an ID card would be an extra means to tackle those growing forms of crime and another weapon in its armoury. Does not the Home Office have some sympathy with that point of view? Would it not help to detect illegal immigrants? Would it not enable a tighter, stricter control of the movements of suspected terrorists? Many of them come into Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland and the Province for all sorts of occasions, but in fact on terrorist missions. An ID card check at the ports and airports, although I recognise it would be a civil liberty nuisance, would hinder their movements and operations and be an added tool to the emergency provisions Acts.
The Government have argued that its introduction would be financially prohibitive. They mention that it would cost £350 million to introduce. If an Ill card system, with powers granted to the police to stop and check, could have thwarted one bomb blast in the City, it would have been well worth while. The Baltic Exchange blast cost insurers £350 million and the Bishopsgate bomb cost £400 million so I hope that the Home Office will reconsider its cost argument.
Perhaps the Minister might inform the House of the views of the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, who reckon that they would benefit considerably, with the ID card discouraging social security fraud and tax evasion. Not only have public attitude surveys shown that the public are in favour of it, and—of crucial importance—the Police Federation too, who would be at the sharp end of its introduction and operation, but the Home Office is also aware that the majority of letters and representations are in favour.
The card should be free. Why not? The police powers of stop and check are essential if we are to have an effective, beneficial crime detection scheme. The ID card could initially be a simple version containing basic facts for easy identification: name, sex, date of birth, residence, photograph and signature. It is time that the Home Office gave more urgent and sympathetic consideration to introducing a mandatory ID card scheme. I believe that the voluntary phase is over. I believe that the nation is prepared to carry an ID card at all times. Most do it now. The police are convinced that it would have a successful impact on all forms of minor crime and be an added aid in checking

1467
major criminal activities. It would be an act of the greatest good for the greatest number. It would scare the crooks, the fiddlers and the fraudsters and our law-abiding citizens would have nothing to fear, but they would feel a lot safer.
7.22 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I too support a voluntary based ID card of the Smart type outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies. I see no problem that cannot be overcome. With falling national barriers all over Europe, such a national scheme would be of tremendous help to our police service. I can see particular advantages in the card, whatever form it would take, in containing information such as allergies and the carrier's blood group, in case of accident and for identification.
Beyond those comments, I reiterate what I said on the subject on 23rd June last year. Having no desire to detain your Lordships any longer, I refer the House to cols. 406 and 407 of Hansard for that date.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, for this opportunity to put a few suggestions forward about a national identity card scheme.
During 1987 I chaired a working group on young people and alcohol for the Home Office Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. When we presented the report on 24th November of that year, there were many questions from the floor about our 50 recommendations. The publicans present were worried about the identification of young people, particularly girls, many of whom look older than their years, and some who are challenged because they look younger than 18, although many may be well on in their 20s. I suggested then that the best way would be to have recognised official identity cards. Many places brought in a voluntary card system for that purpose and there seem to be no problems.
I have discussed the use of identity cards with some of our Italian members of staff here in your Lordships' House. There seem to be no problems; in fact they told me that they can now use the ID card in place of a passport for European countries. The card is in a small wallet with a photograph, the name and number and date of birth. Now that we are part of Europe, we will look rather out of date if we cause a fuss about carrying an ID card. In fact, all noble Lords carry or have identification. People are used to cards of all kinds. Disabled people, with their disabled driver's badge, must have a photograph for identification. An ID card without a photograph would not be useful; they must have photographs.
With so much serious crime such as drug trafficking, terrorism and increased burglary and rape; with border barriers in Europe coming down, we should not delay in having ID cards. They will not stop crime but they may help a little. Any help is better than nothing, as the rising drug trade is expensive in human tragedies and to the economy as a whole.
1468
One noble Baroness who spends some months each year in the United States of America told me that because she is over 50 she obtains benefits when she produces her ID card; for example, the price of ice cream is reduced. I hope that the Government will no longer sit on the fence over this matter. Modern technology today should be good enough to detect whether a card is forged. No doubt the Government will put that forward as an argument, but if they do, how is it that so many cards are used for identification for so many different reasons throughout the country?
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Sharpies raised the issue today. One of my earliest memories is of being presented with a silver bracelet which I wore throughout the war. It bore the inscription—and I remember it well today —my name, followed by the number QEJR 176/4. It certainly caused me no embarrassment and was quite decorative. On the other hand, I accept that, with the ending of the war, people who had lived with restrictions in so many areas of life were only too glad to have the freedom of putting all such matters behind them.
However, time has moved on and identification is required in many spheres. The need for security has changed basic thinking. Who would have thought, years ago, that Members of your Lordships' House would have passes and wear them? There can hardly be a person in the land who does not possess either a bank or credit card of some type. Some of us possess far too many cards and an industry has sprung up in the insurance of those cards. However, it seems to me that, in these days of high and ever increasing technology, it would not be beyond the wit of man to devise a card which might possibly have universal use.
My main reason for supporting the use of ID cards is the increase of crime. Sadly, we live in a society where most families have been affected or have relatives or close friends who have. I cannot accept the philosophy of those against the use of ID cards, seeing them as an infringement of their liberty. Anyone who is going about his or her legitimate business has nothing to fear, and I should be quite happy to produce my card, if requested. I feel that it would make this country a safer place, as it would act as a deterrent to would-be criminals. It would also benefit the elderly and the vulnerable who live with the fear of violent crime. It is that fear which causes them such distress.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I go further in support and say that I should be happy to have my fingerprints recorded. As a law-abiding citizen, I have nothing to hide and I should certainly not feel my civil liberties to be curtailed in any way by such a measure.
The debate about whether identity cards should be voluntary or compulsory would be fiercely contested, but I hope and believe that, with sensitive and sound argument, the public would accept a compulsory scheme. I frequently travel around the country, talking to groups, many of them women's groups. Almost without exception, the question of identity cards is raised. The groups are enthusiastic in their

1469
support for such a measure. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter and I look forward to hearing the views of my noble friend the Minister.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise to speak as someone who has not spoken before on this topic unlike the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. I was not going to speak, but then I decided that I would do so for a rather obscure reason. I believe that there is a major problem about defining citizenship in this country. There is no clear definition. Paradoxically, contrary to what many people think who genuinely care for the liberty of the citizen, there is a great problem for people who have no visible way of establishing their citizenship, and I speak mainly of ethnic minorities.
My son tells me that many young people walking along the Holloway Road in Islington are frequently and unnecessarily stopped by the police. It would be simple for such people to flash an identity card and to say to the law, "Leave me alone. I am not what you think I am". It is a serious problem because for a great deal of the time people who are black, brown or yellow, whatever one wants to call them (I am sure that those descriptions are all politically incorrect) find themselves harassed. Each time I go through customs I am stopped because they believe I look suspicious, but I do not know why.
We are all used to carrying cards, as many noble Lords have already said. I carry four cards with photographs and a countless number of cards without photographs. Therefore, I believe that we are used to carrying photographs. What I am about to say may be slightly controversial so I apologise to any noble Lord who may be an expert lawyer in the matter. I found the recent case of Mr. John Matthews very peculiar. He is not a criminal because the police have been unable to prove any charge against him. But he is to be confined to one part of the United Kingdom. I do not think that anyone could do that if there were clearly-defined citizenship and rights for moving all over the country.
If I had an identity card I could say to the police, "If you have nothing against me to put me in some kind of custody, I have the right to move around the country". I would even accept a compulsory identity card, which would be a very good way of identifying a basic citizenship. Rather than restricting the liberty of the individual, for the first time it would establish clearly and unambiguously who was entitled to certain rights and who was not.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, for introducing this topic. We should speed ourselves towards this measure. The sum of £250 million sounds like a lot of money, but it is only £5 per person. It would provide a card which we could use for many years, and so it is not very much money.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. It aptly follows the report on identity cards published in May. There is only justification for the cost and effort of introducing
1470
cards if they are likely to be beneficial in reducing crime and in the identification of criminals, many of whom are difficult to identify and involve much expensive time of police officers trying to establish their correct identity.
I believe that it is the lifting of the frontier controls that has accelerated the need for IDs because it will be far easier in future for drug smugglers, terrorists and criminals to cross borders at will. The swiping of ID cards at borders would be an invaluable check to see which of these undesirables are moving about and where they are.
There are many advantages to the ID scheme. It will be possible in future to put on a Smart card ID some 3 million pieces of information. That could include every sort of personal detail such as fingerprints, DNA and whatever else may be used by then to identify. It could include driving licence, health card, credit card and almost anything else.
One of the weapons of the terrorist and the criminal is anonymity and many have several identities with which to confuse authority. Burglars would find it more difficult to represent themselves as officials to gain entry when a well-recognisable ID card had to be introduced. Almost anything can now be produced to simulate authority to enter, and who knows what the genuine one looks like.
ID cards could make a major impact on credit card fraud which at the moment is immense. Publicans would be able to check on the ages of those entering pubs. There are many other benefits and uses. Indeed, the value of the cards to the retail trade, the high street banks and the building societies would be so great that collectively they might well be prepared to sponsor their cost.
Of course, there are a number of disadvantages to the introduction of cards. Probably the main one is that while the law-abiding citizen would usually carry his card for the benefits that it brought. the criminal would not be likely to carry his around while aburglaring. That would be particularly the case with a system of voluntary cards. Perhaps my noble friend can suggest how that could be overcome. It does not achieve much if just the good guys carry cards.
Having said that, I lost all my chainsaws and when the burglar returned to pick up the new replacements, he actually dropped his national insurance card while climbing out. So at least some of the bad guys carry identification already!
Another disadvantage would be the cost. That would have to be weighed against the benefit in the reduction of crime, the reduction of identification time and the reduction of fraud in such things as social security and credit cards. There is also the suspicion that the data on the card could be misused by the authorities, and the initiators of the scheme would have to convince the public that technology could adequately shield that information.
There will come a time when the criminal fraternity would learn how to compromise the system. but it is estimated that that would take at least 10 years, and by then it is to be hoped that technology would once again have got ahead of the game.

1471
There is concern that the police would abuse their powers to order the presentation of cards, particularly among minority ethnic youth. But everybody already has a social security number, a driving licence number and a medical card number and while the youth may object, it is highly probable that the adult ethnic people and the ethnic girls would be only too pleased if it meant a little more safety on the streets.
Any form of personal restriction always seems to be opposed by the civil liberties' lobby. But people are now so scared and concerned for their safety, and so exasperated with crime, that I believe that some civil liberties have to be foregone for the sake of the civil liberties of the potential victim. After all, we now carry cards in the form of driving licences, credit cards and even ID cards, as has been mentioned, so why not a non-driving licence as in the United States?
I believe that the public will accept almost any measure at the moment if they feel it will contribute to reducing crime. But even so, it will still be necessary to explain the system and its benefits, with a lot of public relations, for the scheme to be readily accepted. I believe that that is most important or the subject could turn into an unnecessary political battle.
It is interesting to look at other countries. Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy all have compulsory cards while France and Denmark have voluntary ones. The Netherlands are introducing one in 1994, leaving only the United Kingdom and Eire without. I favour a compulsory system and I hope that it will be introduced in exactly the same way as licences. If compulsory cards can work in seven major countries in Europe, it cannot be beyond all possibility for it to work in England.
I hope that the Government will give serious thought to the introduction of ID cards. They must know as well as anyone else that the whole population is thoroughly sick of the crime wave and are far from convinced that the Government are prepared to take firm action to get tough on crime. That is the one positive step that could and should be taken to prove their intent.
7.39 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in this small debate your Lordships have been unanimous in your support of identity cards. Indeed, your Lordships have been virtually unanimous in support of compulsory identity cards. It hardly qualifies as a debate unless somebody disagrees to some extent so I shall attempt to do that although I, personally, find many of the arguments that have been put forward quite attractive.
My difficulties with the proposition are both technical and —much more importantly—are concerned with the civil liberties aspect of identity cards. Perhaps I should say that I have no objection whatsoever to carrying identity cards. Indeed, when I look in my wallet, I find that I am carrying a large number of them: a card key with a magnetic strip which enables me to get into my office; a Senior Railcard; a photo-card for London Transport; a quite
1472
unnecessary and pointless patient registration card from Boots the Chemists which I was given for prescriptions; and a driving licence which also contains an organ donor undertaking. All those are in addition to my credit cards. Therefore, I have no personal objection to such cards.
However, when I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, and others, talk about Smart cards, I start to worry. There is already information which I do not understand on some of my cards—and I include information in my passport. I do not know what it contains. I do not like having things which I might be required to produce when I do not know what information is contained on them. I have heard suggestions that such cards could include information about my driving offences—if I had any. I really do start to get worried about the idea of carrying cards that contain information when I do not know what that information comprises.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said that she would not mind such cards carrying fingerprints. They will carry one's DNA profile next. There are all sorts of ways in which that could be extended. As we have been told that a Smart card can contain 3 million items of information, it all becomes worrying. Having worked professionally on evaluating the development of Smart cards, I should tell the House that such cards do not work as well as people think. They are, indeed, tamper-proof, but they are not destruction-proof. The Smart cards which I have been evaluating for young people getting training credits from the Department of Employment have been fed into cash machines because people do not understand that such cards should not be fed into cash machines—although the cash machines swallow them. It all becomes worrying if there is then a presumption that something is wrong if one fails to produce a Smart card.
Turning now to the civil liberties aspect of this subject, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said that anyone going about his or her legitimate business has nothing to fear. Of course, no Member of this House has anything to fear. However, my noble friend Lord Desai knows very well and has made it clear that in many parts of London young people (and black young people in particular) have a great deal to fear from stop and search. As I said in the House only this week, all the people whom I saw being stopped in the green channel going through Customs at Heathrow were black or brown. It is not statistically probable that that should happen without there being racial prejudice.
The fact is that even if carrying the card were voluntary, and even if it were perfectly true that all people in this country going about their legitimate business need have no fear of such cards, that leaves a very large number of people who, while not doing anything wrong, simply resist the idea of being identified and of having identification which contains things that they do not know about.
I have listened carefully to the arguments and, in efficiency terms, some are most attractive, but this country, after all, has quite strict controls at its frontiers. It is our intention to continue that, and in that regard we are different from other countries in the

1473
European Community. For reasons fundamentally of civil liberties and only secondly for technical reasons, I have grave doubts about the proposal.
7.44 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharpies for the opportunity to debate this subject. We have had an interesting debate, with seven of your Lordships in favour of identity cards and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rightly putting a different view. I shall not follow him in pulling out all the cards that are in my wallet. If I did so, I might surprise myself, let alone your Lordships.
The Government's position was recently made clear by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in reply to an earlier question on the introduction of identity cards from my noble friend when he noted that this matter is kept under review. This is an entirely practical approach, which is based on detailed and continuing consideration of the alleged benefits of either a voluntary or a compulsory card and weighing any potential advantages against the disadvantages and costs.
Let us look first at the benefits which might accrue from the introduction of an identity card. In recent years it has been suggested that it would reduce the incidence of crime, including terrorism; cheque and credit card fraud; and tax and social security fraud. Certainly, the claimed effect on crime was the justification for retaining the wartime system of identity cards until 1952, but it was then abolished after public concern at the way in which the police exercised their powers to demand and check the cards.
If we consider the issue of voluntary identity cards, it is riot clear exactly how we could in practice achieve a reduction in crime or an increase in detection rates. It seems unlikely that those intending to commit criminal offences would choose to equip themselves with a genuine identity card, and difficulty in identifying those arrested is not in any case the major factor in the detection of crime. The real difficulty lies in actually catching the person who has committed the crime.
As far as cheque and credit card fraud is concerned, the most effective answer is to improve the security of the documents themselves rather than to introduce another one. Furthermore, we understand that retailers do not generally support the idea of requiring cardholders to present separate evidence of identity since this would introduce an extra process and therefore greater complexity and delay at the point of sale. As for tax and social security fraud, which the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, mentioned, I understand that more problems arise from false statements about circumstances than from assumed false identities. That is the voluntary card.
A compulsory card on the other hand would, of course, require some statutory means of enforcement. Thus, the police would require powers to stop citizens and demand that an identity card be produced on the spot or within a certain space of time. And, of course, it is not possible to distinguish at a glance between citizens who would be required to carry a card from
1474
visitors who would not. There would also have to be some sanction against those who, being required to produce an identity card. failed to do so—in effect, creating a new offence and a new group of potential offenders.
Moving on from the mechanisms that a compulsory system would call into being—and it should not be thought for a minute that these would be cheap to institute, a point which I shall return to later—we have to ask what advantages it could offer. In the fight against crime, the answer is in part as I have indicated for the voluntary system. Identification is not the major problem in the detection of serious crime.
It is also suggested that identity cards would help to reduce under-age drinking, an objective of the proof-of-age card which the Portman Group already issues free of charge. It is also suggested that identity cards would bring us into line with our European neighbours. In fact, in six countries they are compulsory; in others they are voluntary; and in Denmark and the Republic of Ireland, as here, identity cards do not at present exist. Compulsory identity cards exist in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. In France and Italy, identity cards, though not compulsory, are widely used. The Dutch Government recently tabled proposals to introduce an identity card in the Netherlands. There is no proposal to introduce a uniform identity card throughout the EC. Indeed, any harmonised system would require unanimity on the part of all member states.
Neither am I sure that identity cards would assist in countering the terrorist threat. Criminals would be likely to try to circumvent the system by the use of fraudulently acquired cards, and in any case such a system would not impede the activities of individuals unknown to the security forces.
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989, the police have powers to examine and establish the identity and nationality of travellers at ports. The views of the police are, of course, particularly relevant to this question. In 1989, the Association of Chief Police Officers told us that there would in fact be no clear advantage to the police in the issue of identity cards. I understand that it has now reviewed its position and is in favour of voluntary cards. It acknowledges that voluntary cards would not be as effective as compulsory cards but recognises the difficulties of compulsion which I have already mentioned.
Another argument in support of identity cards put by my noble friend Lord Gisborough is that they would in some way assist in immigration control. Our island geography, with limited points of entry, makes it the most practicable and effective system to maintain a frontier-based system of control. Non-EC nationals entering the United Kingdom are required to hold a valid passport, and EC nationals are required to have a passport or national identity card. An identity card scheme is therefore unnecessary for establishing the identity of foreign nationals. We have no intention of abandoning immigration controls on non-EC nationals at our frontiers.

1475
In considering any proposal for an identity card scheme, we must therefore bear in mind the following points: the public's view of a requirement to possess and carry a card; that the police are in favour of a scheme but enforcing it would impose an additional burden on them; and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we should have to guard against a false sense of security in both individuals and in society at large by fostering a mistaken belief that production of a card implied an absence of criminality. That is one of the points that led the police to the conclusion that a voluntary card presents fewer problems, particularly with regard to community relations.
Another important point to bear in mind is the cost of producing a card which could not be forged. That would be substantial. It would presumably have to be borne by the Exchequer if the scheme were compulsory and by the individual if it were voluntary.
It was estimated in 1989 that the total cost of issuing identity cards to all British citizens aged 12 and over would be about £350 million. That figure was based upon the then unit cost of a passport. An up-to-date estimate would have to take account of inflation since then; it would also be affected by the amount of information to be stored on the card. Initial capital costs would be extra, and the annual running costs would depend upon the number of new cards issued each year, the frequency of renewal and whether changes of address had to be notified. A running cost of £50 million to £100 million a year was estimated in 1989.
I began this speech by explaining that this subject is kept under review by the Government, and I have set before your Lordships some of the arguments that we must weigh in our deliberations. We are always ready to heed practical arguments on any aspect of the issue, and the points which your Lordships have raised will, of course, be examined closely.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.54 to 8.10 p.m.]

Railways Bill
House again in Committee.
Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [General functions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 110AV:
Page 69, line 23, after ("railway") insert ("passenger and freight").
The noble Lord said: The Minister can quickly satisfy my noble friend and me if he can assure us that the words "railway services" means passenger and freight. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, it does.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister has assured me that the phrase "railway services" includes passenger and freight, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 111:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
Code of practice for protection of interests of rail users who are disabled
(" .—(1) The Regulator shall—

(a) prepare and from time to time revise, and

(b) publish and otherwise encourage the adoption and. implementation of,

a code of practice for protecting the interests of users of railway passenger services or station services who are disabled.
(2) In preparing or revising the code of practice, the Regulator shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, established under section 125 of the Transport Act 1985.").
The noble Earl said: I know that many Members of the Committee are concerned to protect the interests of the many disabled people who use the railway network. We believe that it is right to afford protection to their interests. Indeed, we have already moved an amendment to protect the continued provision of a national discount scheme for disabled passengers. We attach considerable importance to providing greater mobility for disabled people and we want to build on BR's good record for dealing with disabled passengers.
First, I should like to stress that our privatisation policy is about getting better services; that means for all rail users, including disabled passengers. Secondly, all railway operators will be required by the terms of their operating licence to have regard to the needs of passengers with mobility handicaps and that includes the operators of stations as well as the operators of passenger trains. Thirdly, the person responsible for issuing and checking compliance with those licences will be the new, independent railway regulator; independent of the railway operators and of Ministers and with a clear remit to look after passengers' interests. One of his key duties will be to look after the interests of disabled passengers.
We have discussed the way in which the regulator should go about discharging his duty to have regard to the needs of disabled passengers with the organisations representing disabled people. It is in the light of those discussions that I am tabling this new clause. My amendment addresses the two principal concerns which have been raised with us. It places a duty on the regulator to consult DPTAC. Members of the Committee will, I am sure, be aware of the very valuable work that DPTAC does to promote the interests of disabled people. We believe there can be no better body for representing their interests to the regulator.
The special facilities that disabled people need are often inexpensive and can help to make passenger services more attractive and easier to use for all passengers; for example, making sure that handles are easy to grip, doorways are wide enough to get through, announcements are clear and audible. Often making provision for disabled people is a matter of

1477
common sense. That is why we believe that having a code of practice produced by the regulator makes such good sense. Making the whole of the railway network fully accessible to all disabled people is not something that could be achieved overnight. But the existence of a code of practice will mean that when new facilities are being designed or old facilities refurbished there will he a code to which the designers can look to ensure that disabled passengers' needs are not forgotten. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: I thank the Government and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for the distance that we have travelled—I hope by rail—in Amendment No. 111, which is now before the Committee. Members of the Committee who follow these matters keenly might have noticed that before the amendment appeared, the noble Lord. Lord Renton, and I were trying to draft our own amendments. But good fortune smiled upon us and the noble Earl has proffered this alternative, which we are pleased to see.
However, those Members of the Committee with an interest in matters Biblical will recall how in the 18th chapter of the Book of Genesis Abraham pushed his luck with the Lord in pleading for the righteous in the city of Sodom. Each time the Lord made a concession old Abraham put in a bid for a further concession. I do not wish to push this parallel too far, for we all know what happened to that particular city. I also recognise that I am pleading with a temporal rather than a somewhat senior spiritual Lord.
May I too strain the Minister's tolerance by asking for two aspects of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I were trying to achieve to be carried into the clause so that we can achieve an even better text on Report? First, it seems to me that, excellent person as the regulator will no doubt be, there will be more weight behind the code of practice if it comes from the Secretary of State rather than the regulator. My recollection is that other codes of practice bear that imprimatur; certainly that is true, for example, of the code of practice issued under Section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Secondly, while it is good that DPTAC must be consulted, the clause as it stands does not require anyone to take account of what DPTAC says. Again, I do not believe that we have to look at precedents requiring the person doing the consulting to have regard to the advice that he receives. "Taking account o' and "having regard to" are phrases which crop up regularly in social security legislation. Incidentally, I believe that the references to unstaffed stations made in Amendment No. 107D could well be considered by DPTAC and taken account of as I have just suggested.
If the Minister can see his way to taking away those not unimportant refinements with a view to tabling an amendment on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I, plus thousands of disabled travellers will be well satisfied.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not wish to follow the Biblical simile of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, but I have a number of questions to pose about what
1478
undoubtedly represents some advance, though I am not convinced that the Government have seized on the right way of going about this issue. First, I adopt the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in questioning whether it shall be the regulator rather than the Government who will prepare the code of practice. There is an important difference. If it is the Secretary of State, then Parliament will be able to scrutinise the code of practice and we shall be able to debate it, because it will come before Parliament for debate and endorsement, whereas, if the regulator publishes the code of practice, I am not sure that we shall have any power of scrutiny whatever. That is an important lacuna.
I did not quite catch all the Minister's words. I believe that he referred to people who are disabled —and, indeed, that is written into the clause. He went on to refer to people suffering from a mobility handicap and I believe that he referred to a third category. Perhaps he will remind me of that category when he replies.
A person suffering from a mobility handicap could be a mother wheeling a pushchair onto a station and trying to board a train with that pushchair. That is a mobility handicap of sorts. I do not know whether such a person is to be included. I wonder what the Minister means by that and whether a statutory definition is available elsewhere.
Does that apply to the elderly; somebody who is not disabled but who is, by the vicissitudes of age, not particularly mobile? For example, the noble Lord', Lord Renton, is as sprightly as ever I remember him to be. Does the amendment cover a person who is 70 plus, not very sprightly but who cannot claim to be disabled?
I take it that the Minister has no intention of making the code of practice enforceable in any way unless the regulator is to be given specific powers in relation to the implementation of the code of practice. Is it a voluntary code? Perhaps the Minister will tell us the status of the code.
All those matters are very much associated with our earlier debate on Amendment No. 107 because, with all the goodwill in the world, we can have codes of practice to protect the interests of the railway passenger and so on, but unless the staff' are available to assist materially in helping those passengers who are affected by the new clause, then the situation will not work out in practice. I shall not rehearse our earlier debate because we shall return to that at a later stage, but I am not at all sure that the situation of "destaffed" or understaffed stations will miraculously change as a result of the activities of the regulator and/or the franchising director. Unless staff are available, such disabled people cannot undertake the tasks which must be undertaken at a station; for example, boarding a train and so on. That means that we must consider this matter in conjunction with our reconsideration of our Amendment No. 107 at a later stage.
The Government have made certain concessions. I do not believe that they go far enough. On Report I shall wish to look at the need to strengthen those

1479
provisions but I thank the Government for having gone this far. I just wish to edge them a little further along the right route.
Lord Renton: I too thank the Government. This is an extremely good initiative on the part of my noble friend Lord Caithness. As the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Clinton-Davis, have done, I should like to make one or two suggestions for clarifying and strengthening the new clause.
My first point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I believe that it should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish the code of practice. I say that for several reasons. First, if we look back through the statute book, we find that in nearly every case a Minister is given the responsibility. That has the advantage that the Minister can be questioned about the contents, the effect and the operation of the code of practice; whereas the regulator cannot be questioned. Therefore, it would be better to place that obligation on the Secretary of State rather than upon the regulator.
My next point is that at present, although we are told what the purpose of the code of practice is to be—protecting the interests of users who are disabled—we are not told to whom the advice, the guidance in the code of practice, is to be directed. It must obviously be directed at those people who will operate the railways and railway stations. Therefore, I believe the clause needs to make that clear.
Also, we should make it clear that the code is for guidance. We must be very clear minded about codes of practice. There are two kinds of legislation; primary and secondary legislation. The codes of practice are neither. They are merely advisory. The Highway Code is an excellent example. Therefore, it should be made clear that the code is for guidance, and the new clause is silent on that matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I believe that the noble Lord will agree that in certain circumstances the codes of practice can have evidential value in relation to the prosecution of offences or even in relation to civil cases. That matter can be important. Whether the code of practice is intended to have that role or is intended to have a general view, I do not know. I believe that that needs to be clarified.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord is quite right. Perhaps I may give the Committee a vivid example of that. You cannot accuse a person in court of having committed an offence by failing to observe the Highway Code. You have to charge that person with, for example, dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention. In the course of pursuing that charge, the prosecution can say that there was evidence of lack of due care and attention in that the Highway Code was not observed in certain respects. That is quite true. But it is for guidance and that should be made clear.
My only other point is to mention a matter which worried the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis; namely, the people to be protected. The clause refers to the "disabled". That is a very wide term indeed in statute.
1480
It includes mentally handicapped people and those of us who are rather old, but it does not include us merely because we are old. It includes us only if we have become in some way defective, physically or mentally. We then become disabled, but we are not automatically disabled. I hope that that makes the position clear.
Lord Tordoff: I support what has already been said. There is one other point that I should like to make. The amendment says that the "regulator shall consult". That does not seem to take us much further. I understand that the commitment in another place, was that the Government would bring forward an amendment which would not only result in the regulator consulting but that the regulator would also give due regard to the views of DPTAC. I have the highest possible regard for that organisation and the department is always to be congratulated on the support it has given it. Like other speakers, I believe that the provision needs to be strengthened. I am not sure that, even now, the Government have fulfilled the obligation undertaken in another place.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened with great care to what Members of the Committee had to say on this account. I am grateful for the kind words about what we have tried to do. Again, I think that this is another occasion in our discussions on the Bill—indeed, one of many—that from earlier discussions we would not have believed possible. In fact, there is nothing between us at all on trying to get this right.
I must tell my noble friend Lord Renton that there is no definition of "disabled" in the Bill. There is a reason for that; namely, that the regulator will have a degree of discretion in determining the coverage of the code. I am sure that that flexibility is something that my noble friend will welcome. The code will be voluntary, but the regulator is under a duty to encourage its use and implementation. Of course, there is the requirement upon him that he shall produce a code. Indeed, if my noble friend will look at the first line of the amendment he will see that it says, "The Regulator shall". That is also helpful. The code will not have any force for the purposes of criminal or civil proceedings; it is simply for guidance.
In our view it is appropriate for the regulator, who is independent and has general responsibilities across the railway industry, to be the person to provide the code. I well remember the discussions that we had on Clause 4 as to the regulator's powers and responsibilities. Although I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said in that he would prefer the Secretary of State to have that responsibility, I am not sure that, where the regulator is independent and is responsible across the whole range of the railway industry for encouraging people to use the railway and for how it is to be used, he is not also the right person to look at the disabled code.
I turn now to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and one that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In our view, a duty to consult must include a duty to take account of the

1481
views of those consulted. That is a principle of administrative law. I believe that it covers the concerns expressed this evening.
However, having said that, I shall obviously wish to read with care in Hansard what Members of the Committee have said and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As I said at the beginning, we have in common the desire to get the matter right. We may also take the opportunity of arranging a meeting between now and a later stage because Amendment No. 50 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is another matter which needs to be discussed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Keeping of register by the Regulator]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 70, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) every revocation of a licence exemption;").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 111A, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 111B and 111C. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 111B and 111C:
Page 70, line 29, leave out ("direction or consent") and insert ("requirement imposed, or consent or approval").
Page 70, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) every requirement imposed, or consent or approval given, under a licence by any person (other than the Regulator) who is a qualified person, within the meaning of section 9(2) above, for the purpose in question, being a requirement, consent or approval whose provisions have been notified to the Regulator pursuant to a condition of the licence;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 71, line 8, at end insert:
("(iii) every closure certified by the Regulator as a minor closure;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 112 I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 113. Amendment No. 112 deals with the register for closures. It is not clear that that includes minor closures, as they do not require the regulator's consent; he is simply required to "certify" them. The amendment would specifically require details of minor closures to be entered in the register.
Amendment No. 113, which relates to the subsection which enables the Secretary of State to direct the regulator not to enter any provision in the register if he considers that it would be against the public interest so to do, would not permit him to omit any details in relation to closures or experimental passenger services, the details of which I think he ought to complete. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: At first sight it seems wholly reasonable that the regulator should register every certification that a proposed closure is a minor closure; indeed, the noble Baroness was very persuasive. But, on second thoughts and when one
1482
looks at the amendment in closer detail, I am not so sure that it is a good idea because of the extremely minor nature of minor closures.
Let us remind ourselves of what a minor closure is. It is, by definition, a closure which inconveniences neither operators nor passengers. For example, in the case of a proposal to withdraw services, the regulator may certify a closure as a minor one only if passengers would not as a result of the withdrawal be forced to make an extra change of trains or have their journey times significantly increased.
Most closures certified as minor will be even less significant. For example, if the owner of a light maintenance depot wished to demolish the washrooms in order to install new facilities, the demolition would count as a closure and would have to be reported to the regulator's office in order to be certified as minor. Closures are defined very widely in order to guarantee that nothing which should be subject to closure procedures is missed. There is, I imagine, little of controversy about the merits of that approach. However, its consequence is that there are likely to be any number of trivial certifications of minor closures. I do not think that there is any public interest requirement for all of them to be registered. I think that the amendment would place unreasonably onerous requirements on the regulator's office. It is for that reason, rather than as a matter of principle, that I cannot agree to the noble Baroness's amendment.
Baroness Stedman: I hear what the Minister says. I still think that it would probably be better if all those minor closures were entered in the register. Surely that would not involve too much work for the regulator. However, I shall read what the Minister has said arid reconsider the matter. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 71, line 21, at end insert:
("(f) in relation to rail freight, details of every applicant and recipient of grants under sections 124 and 126 below.").
The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move the above small amendment to which the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is also attached. In the long list of the regulator's responsibilities, one aspect which seems to have been missed out in relation to rail freight is that there is no requirement to make a report. Yet, as I am sure the Minister will agree, it will be public money that will be spent under Clauses. 124 and 126. In the circumstances, I wonder whether we can add a further condition—namely, paragraph (f) of the amendment—to the existing paragraphs (a) to (e) so that we shall know what has actually been spent on rail freight and also have details of the grants under the two clauses. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment. It is important that public money is spent wisely and is subject to effective scrutiny. However, there are already mechanisms in place for

1483
ensuring such scrutiny without disclosing details which may be damaging to the commercial interests of individual firms.
First, I should emphasise that the regulator's register would be the wrong place for publishing information of the kind described by the noble Lord. The regulator has specific functions and duties, and these do not relate to the payment of government grants. The regulator's register is to contain information in which he has a direct interest by virtue of his functions under the Bill (for example, information relating to licences and access agreements). It would therefore not be appropriate to require the regulator to obtain, or include in his register, information about matters in which he has no direct interest.
Secondly, the payment of grants is naturally subject to detailed scrutiny by the National Audit Office, who are at liberty to make random checks on the procedures used by the Department of Transport and the territorial departments. Grants are paid following objective assessments and against specific criteria—there is no scope for improper payments.
Thirdly, some Members of the Committee might not be aware—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is aware of this —that information about freight facilities grant awards is already deposited annually in the Library of both Houses, following an undertaking given by the Minister for Public Transport in another place in December 1990. It is the Government's intention that information about the enhanced grant scheme introduced by Clause 126 of the Bill will be similarly recorded.
The nature of the brand new track costs grant introduced by Clause 124 of the Bill does not lend itself easily to public disclosure of individual awards. This is a revenue grant, and will be paid to rail freight operators once they have concluded commercial negotiations with Railtrack. However, I appreciate the noble Lord's anxieties, and the Government will consider the most appropriate way of notifying Parliament about the operation of the grant.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: No one could be other than happy and pleased with the effort the Minister has made to satisfy the spirit of the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [General duties of the Central Committee]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): In calling Amendment No. 113A, I must point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 114 under the pre-emption rule. I now call Amendment No. 113A.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 74, line 9, leave out from ("relates") to end of line 11 and insert:
("(a) to the provision of railway passenger services—

(i) by the Board or any subsidiary of the Board,

1484

(ii) under a franchise agreement, or

(iii) on behalf of the Franchising Director, or

(b) to the provision of station services by any person in a case where the operator of the station in question is authorised by a licence to be the operator of that station,
if the condition specified in subsection (1A) below is satisfied in relation to the matter in question.
(1A) The condition mentioned in subsection (1) above is satisfied if-").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 113A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 115A, 116A to 116E, 119A to 119D, 119F, 119G, 127E to 127H.
This large group of amendments has three simple. and important purposes. The amendments will bring the following within the remit of the consumer committees: services provided on behalf of the franchising director; bus substitution services; and station services provided by all licensed station operators rather than just station services provided by franchisees and BR.
Amendments Nos. 113A, 116D, 116E and 119G achieve the changes of substance while the remainder in this group are minor drafting alterations consequential on these changes. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is important that these services be included. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 74, line 13, leave out ("services for the carriage of passengers by railway") and insert ("railway passenger services").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 114A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 115B, 117A and 119E. These are merely technical drafting amendments that are required because of a change of definition. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 115A:
Page 74, line 19, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 115B:
Page 74, line 21, leave out ("services for the carriage of passengers by railway") and insert ("railway passenger services").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 116:
Page 74, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment he has brought forward. However, I am not certain yet that he has covered all the points that I wanted him to cover in Amendments Nos. 116, 117 and 118. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 116A:

1485
Page 74, line 47, leave out ("(a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 116B, 116C and 116D:
Page 75, line 2, at end insert ("or ( ) in the case of a service provided on behalf of the Franchising Director, to the Franchising Director,").
Page 75, line 20, leave out ("(1)(b)") and insert ("(1A)(b)").
Page 75, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) The services which are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as provided on behalf of the Franchising Director are the same services as are to be so regarded for the purposes of section 32 above.
( ) In this section, any reference to railway passenger services includes a reference to bus substitution services required to be provided in place of any such services; and in this subsection, "bus substitution services" has the same meaning as it has in sections 120 to 124 of the Transport Act 1985.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 [General duties of consultative committees]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 116E is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 117 under the pre-emption rule. I now call Amendment No. 116E.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 116E:
Page 75, line 34, leave out from ("relates") to ("if") in line 36 and insert:
("(a) to the provision of railway passenger services—

(i) by the Board or any subsidiary of the Board,

(ii) under a franchise agreement, or

(iii) on behalf of the Franchising Director, or

(b) to the provision of station services by any person in a case where the operator of the station in question is authorised by a licence to be the operator of that station,
if the condition specified in subsection (1A) below is satisfied in relation to the matter in question.
(1A) The condition mentioned in subsection (1) above is sat isfied").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 75, line 38, leave out ("services for the carriage of passengers by railway") and insert ("railway passenger services").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 76, line 19, after (" 41") insert ("(Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director) and (Proposals to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment Nos. 119A to 119G:
Page 76, line 23, leave out ("(a)").
Page 76, line 25, at end insert ("or
1486
( ) in the case of a service provided on behalf of the Franchising Director, to the Franchising Director,").
Page 76, line 40, leave out second ("to") and insert ("(1A) and").
Page 76, line 45, leave out ("(1) (b) (i)") and insert ("(1A)(b)(i)").
Page 76, line 47, leave out ("services for the carriage cif passengers by railway") and insert ("railway passenger services").
Page 77, line 10, leave out second ("to") and insert ("(1A) and").
Page 77, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) The services which are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as provided on behalf of the Franchising Director are the same services as are to be so regarded for the purposes of section 32 above.
( ) In this section, any reference to railway passenger services includes a reference to bus substitution services required to be provided in place of any such services; and in this subsection, "bus substitution services" has the same meaning as it has in sections 120 to 124 of the Transport Act 1985.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 [Functions under section 56 of the Transport Act 1962]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 119H:
Page 77, line 28, at end insert:
("(1A) In section 56 of that Act, in subsection (5), the words from the beginning to "section; and"' (which preclude committees from considering charges for services and questions relating to the discontinuance or reduction cif railway services) shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that had it not been for the fact that her amendments could not be moved, we would have recommended to the Committee that they be accepted. Perhaps we can discuss with her between now and another stage how we should proceed from here. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and thank her very much. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 119J:
Page 77, line 29, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 78, line 6, after ("ferry") insert ("or railway").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 120, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 121, 122 and 123. These are minimal amendments. Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 is being amended and the remaining functions of the former area transport users' consultative committees are being transferred to the consultative committees, including their functions relating to the provision of ferry services. That extends powers to the Secretary of State to provide far the role of the consultative committee to include those ferry services.
With these amendments I am seek ing to empower the Secretary of State to extend the role of the consultative committees further to include railways in addition to those which are included in the Bill where

1487
he wishes to do so. That would mean that he could, for example, include the Docklands Light Railway within the London Regional Passengers Committee. Since the railway passed from the control of London Transport to the London Docklands Development Corporation it has technically fallen outside the LRPC's remit.
These are only minor amendments but they would enable the Secretary of State to bring the DLR or any other light railway within the remit of the new committees without the need for an order under the Transport and Works Act, which is the alternative. If the amendments were adopted, that would save time and expense. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: Clauses 68 and 69 set out the duties of the new committees in respect of passenger services provided by British Rail or under a franchise agreement. Clause 70 of this Bill will give them duties under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 in respect of services provided by certain other operators such as the Tyne and Wear Metro and Manchester Metrolink. The London Regional Passengers Committee, which will act as the rail users' consultative committee for London, will continue to consider matters relating to services provided by London Transport under the London Regional Transport Act.
We do not envisage a wider remit for the committees. We do not intend that freight or open access operators should come within their scope. As we have stated earlier, those services are exposed to market forces in the same way as private bus services and civil aviation where no statutory consumer committees operate. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am slightly disappointed by that reply because of the mention of ferry services. In most parts of the country, particularly in my part of the country—where there are many ferries, especially in the Clyde estuary and the North —ferries have little value without the railway to take you there. For unity of purpose I should have thought that we should have the railway and the ferry together. We may be making a great error here. It seems to me that they are part of the same service and I would have hoped for a more encouraging answer from the Minister. If the noble Baroness wishes to consider returning to the matter, I should be only too happy to support her and perhaps raise the matter in another way.
Baroness Stedman: I hope that I can read into the Minister's reply the assurance that passengers on the various light railways have some right of access to a users' committee. That is how I understood his response. If so, that meets my point and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 122A is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 123.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 122A:
Page 78, line 12, leave out from ("service") to end of line 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Duty of certain persons to furnish information to the Franchising Director on request]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 79, line 16, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience. of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 123A, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 123B and 123C.
Amendment No. 123A is essentially a probing amendment. We are anxious to ascertain whether the Bill and any orders which will follow the Bill will make it possible for the franchising director to obtain all the information necessary in order to assess franchise bids.
Clause 72(1) gives the franchising director powers to require the provision of information from the board, subsidiaries of the board and holders of network or station licences. Since the onus will be on the franchising director to let all franchises for providing rail services in future, it seems reasonable that he should have the power to garner information from potential operators to determine whether they genuinely are capable of operating the services and whether they are fit persons to operate a public service. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 123B.
Amendment No. 123C is also a probing amendment. Several clauses in the Bill use the phrase "without reasonable excuse". It would be opportune if the Minister were to advise the Committee exactly what he considers to be a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with directions. In this case we are talking about the directions of the franchising director. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The franchising director is given considerable powers for the purposes of obtaining information under Clause 72 and we have thought carefully about when those powers might be needed. They are aimed at covering three specific types of information. The first relates to the costs of providing a service. The franchising director will need to provide information on which bidders can base their tenders. At present BR is the only source for that information. The second relates to access charges. The franchising director will need to know the cost of gaining access to the track and to stations in order to plan and package franchises and decide on the service levels he should specify. For that he will need to look to the network and station operators. Thirdly, he will need information to monitor franchisees' performance. Much of this is now and will continue to be gathered through track management systems, which will be operated by the track operator, Railtrack.
We do not expect any of the people whom the franchising director might approach to obtain the

1489
information to which I have referred to resist providing it. But the clause provides an important "reserve power" for the franchising director to obtain the information he needs for the purpose of facilitating his functions under this part of the Bill.
The first two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, are aimed at widening the list of persons to whom the provisions of the clause would apply to add persons applying for a network or station licence. I am not convinced that that is necessary given the reasons for which the franchising director would require information.
I turn now to the noble Lord's other amendment. I do not believe that it would be desirable to delete the defence of "reasonable excuse" from subsection (6). Subsection (6) provides that a person failing to comply with the franchising director's request for information, having been served with a notice under subsection (4), would not be guilty of an offence if he has "reasonable excuse". The validity of the "reasonable excuse" would be a matter for the magistrates' court (in England and Wales) or the sheriff court (in Scotland) to decide. I do not think that we can today decide that no reasonable excuse shall ever exist or that criminal liability shall arise even where there is a reasonable excuse. I recommend that it is right that there should be such a defence and that it should be a matter for the court to decide.
Let me also comment on another point raised by the noble Lord. The franchising director does not need powers to obtain information from potential operators. It will be in the interests of potential operators to supply all the information which the director needs to assess their bids. If they refuse to provide information, it is always open to the franchising director to reject their bids.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is very helpful. We shall read with care what he said. I believe that the term "without reasonable excuse" is reasonable in the context. I am a little anxious about its application in relation to the issues affecting enforcement. If one has a reasonable excuse it represents a defence, of course. However I am not sure whether that would cover issues referred to in an earlier context affecting the uncommerciality of being able to carry on with a service, for example. I believe that that would constitute a reasonable excuse.
I shall not press the matter further. I shall read what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123B to 124 not moved]
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clauses 73 and 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Meaning of "railway services" etc.]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 124ZA:
Page 83, line 11, leave out ("cleaning") and insert ("the cleaning of the exterior,").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 124ZA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124ZB
1490
and 124C. They are technical amendments designed to improve definitions of light maintenance services and light maintenance depots. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 124ZB:
Page 83, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert:
("(b) the carrying out to locomotives or other rolling stock of maintenance work of a kind which is normally carried out at regular intervals of twelve months or less to prepare the locomotives or other rolling stock for service;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 [Interpretation of Part 1]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 124A to 124C:
Page 84, line 37, leave out ("or 35(1)") and insert (" (Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)(1), 35(1) or (Proposal to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)(1)").
Page 84, line 43 leave out ("section 2(2) above") and insert ("subsection (2) of section 2 above (but this definition is subject to subsection (4) of that section);").
Page 85, line 21, leave out from ("includes") to end of line 23 and insert ("premises normally used for the provision of light maintenance services, whether or not the land or other property is, or the premises are, also used for other purposes;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 124D:
Page 85, line 34, at end insert:
(" "luggage" means personal effects accompanying passengers and which, for the purposes of this part, includes pedal cycles,");
The noble Lord said: In the absence of both the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Falkland I beg to move Amendment No. 124D and speak to Amendment: No. 125C. First, there is a mistake—I do not know from where it stems—in the wording of the Marshalled List. It refers to "'page 89, line 34". It should refer to "page 85, line 34".
Amendment No. 124[) clarifies and expands the reference in Clause 75(1) (a) to,
"services for the carriage of passengers by railway".
It is intended to make clear that the carriage of pedal cycles as accompanied luggage should be treated as a constituent part of the service provided by the new operators of the railways. We are all aware that every encouragement needs to be given to people to use bicycles for their own health and for the health of the nation rather than rushing around in motor cars. One way of doing that is to make room available on trains for people to take their pedal cycles with them. I am sure that these amendments would have been far better moved by my noble friend, or indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who presumably at the moment is riding the wrong way up a one-way street, as he told us at Second Reading was his custom. I also feel strongly that pedal cyclists are to be encouraged in the interests of their health and the health of the nation.
This provision would ensure parity with a similar measure included in the Channel Tunnel Act after an amendment in Committee, when the right honourable

1491
gentleman, Sir George Young—I am not sure whether at that stage he was speaking as a Minister, therefore I had better not quote him directly —indicated that he had been involved in negotiations time and again with British Rail. He said that all sorts of undertakings had been given but had not been honoured. At that time, 1987, rolling stock was still being designed with no provision for bicycles. That situation has improved recently but the need still has to be underlined.
This amendment would oblige the new operators to provide a rail service that allows a seamless journey —being one which involves two or more transport modes with smooth connections between them. For cyclists, combined rail travel requires smooth connections at both ends of the rail journey. That is most easily accompanied by the provision of a cycle carriage. That should be available to a wide range of passengers. It could have considerable economic potential and avoid the restrictive limitations which have been imposed in past years by British Rail—although, as I said, I believe the situation has improved to a certain extent in recent times. It would meet the Government's target of reducing road congestion, which can be easily achieved by shifting journeys to a combined rail and bicycle mode.
Amendment No. 125C suggests that after "effect" we should insert,
"save that nothing in this provision shall relieve the passenger service operators from providing a similar space for the carriage of pedal cycles and bulky luggage as if they were still compelled to provide space for mailbags on their trains".
I can still remember the days when as children we used to go on holiday and used to send our luggage in advance. It was always there in the hotel when we arrived after we had seen it on its way two or three days before. How things have changed.
The Government's proposals to relieve the new operators of the obligation to carry mailbags reflects the shift in the carriage of mail from rail to road. Where rolling stock has been designed to accommodate this obligation, it serves the requirements of passengers with pedal cycles. Ensuring that the new operators retain the facility supports government policy in meeting targets for stabilising CO2 emissions and reducing congestion in much the same way as the earlier amendment did. Furthermore, while maintaining and expanding the flexible space concept, commercial opportunities would be opened up which hitherto have been limited by regulations concerning the security of the Royal Mail. British Rail, as we heard earlier, ceased to be a common carrier in 1962, but its continued role as a carrier of mailbags has benefited passengers with pedal cycles. The configuration of rolling stock should allow for the continued carriage of bicycles and bulky luggage. All lease agreements or orders placed for train sets by the new operators should incorporate contractual requirements for the provision of flexible space.
These are probing amendments, which I am moving on behalf of others. Nevertheless, I think they are worthy ones. Anything that can be done to encourage the carriage of bicycles by train and that makes it not too difficult for cyclists to take their bicycles with them must be a good thing. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have a vague recollection that we discussed an idea resembling this in the paving Bill. I believe it was the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who moved the amendment on that occasion. I must say in passing that I am delighted to hear of the extraordinary good fortune that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, had in his youth so far as the consignment of his luggage was concerned. If one travels by air these days, luggage which is consigned to Rio sometimes finds its way to Riga or some other such place.
I commend the general idea in this amendment, but I am not sure that it ought to be dealt with by primary legislation. Perhaps it is a matter for a code of practice, or guidelines. But it would be retrograde if trains were not to carry pedal cycles. There was, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, a period when it was virtually impossible to get a pedal cycle on to a train. I think that was wrong. I am glad to hear, although I no longer ride a bicycle myself, that there seems to have been some improvement in that facility or some change in the practice. Certainly, for bulky luggage, space ought to be available for consignment in the appropriate carriage of a train. As I said, I do not feel that that is right for primary legislation but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said about these amendments. Let me take up the example that he gave of rolling stock that was created specially for the Channel Tunnel. There was a crucial decision to be made in designing the new rolling stock. Once the design was fixed, one could not afterwards put in space for bicycles. There had to be a certain amount of thought before new rolling stock was designed.
In a sense we are now in the position of not knowing what new operators and new franchisees are going to do when they have the chance to build new carriages. In my opinion the Government are under a duty strongly to encourage new operators to provide a minimum amount of space for cycles. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave the impression that British Rail had improved in that respect. That may be the case marginally. But at times when I have been involved in British Rail's willingness to carry cycles on trains, they appear to have slipped backwards. They may have taken a few steps forward at one time, but in my opinion they have gradually been slipping backwards and providing less and less space for cycles.
On some of the new rolling stock that British Rail now uses, space is provided for only one or two cycles —perhaps to keep within the law, although I am not sure about that aspect of it. So if a family of four want to go on a cycle outing, they have to catch two separate trains as two trains have to be used to book four cycles. In other words there is a very restricted service on new rolling stock. In my opinion there is potentially a commercial benefit in allowing cycles to be carried on trains. Perhaps that is a longer term benefit and new operators may not want to consider it straight away. They may want to forget about longer

1493
term considerations. l f the Government can encourage them in the direction of such commercial benefit, it would be very useful.
I turn to what I call the Royal Mail amendment, Amendment No. 125C. Currently there are large spaces for carrying the Royal Mail in existing carriages. When the requirement for services to carry the Royal Mail is taken away, there is a possibility that those spaces will be turned over to alternative uses and perhaps for seats. Any ability to carry cycles will disappear.
If the Government can encourage those operators, in whatever way they consider suitable, not to rip out that space, they will be doing a service in a small way to cyclists, for whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, explained, they have expressed encouragement. I hope that the Government can give the Committee some encouragement.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I fear that the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, is slightly mistaken about the economics of railway transport. Railway transport for passengers makes money by carrying passengers. Anybody who has had the misfortune to be jammed up against a bicycle in a tube train will notice its awkward shape. A bicycle does not stack readily, even with the pedals between one's legs. Bicycles on trains take up a wholly disproportionate amount of space. Modern trains are designed to carry passengers efficiently and to extract the maximum amount of revenue that is reasonable from the space within the vehicle.
I am a cyclist but I have to say that bicycles are very bad with regard to space. If there is a charge for the space that they take up, everybody complains like mad. Obviously there is room for compromise. I must say to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, that the days of the guard's van in locomotive hauled coaching stock have virtually disappeared on regional railways, which I suspect is what he is talking about, except in the high season. For providing a guard's van which will hold bicycles British Rail should be roundly congratulated.
With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about the arrival of luggage in advance, somewhere in the attic I have a pile of trunks marked "Luggage in advance, 1s 6d". But I do not suppose that any railway ever made a penny out of them. The service is incredibly labour intensive. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to visit one of those shops, such as Messrs X or Y, who will sell him, sometimes at rather extortionate expense, clothes which weigh but a fraction of those which one used to wear, and thus solve his problem in that way without cost to the public exchequer. However well intended, for commercial reasons the amendment should be opposed. And the Bill is about bringing commerce to the railways.
The Earl of Caithness: We welcome to our Committee stage the noble Viscount. The noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, have been working
1494
hard all day. We welcome the change of voice and the experience the noble Viscount has brought to this matter.
Amendment No. 124D would insert a definition of "luggage" into the Bill which would include reference to bicycles. In Clause 75 it is made clear that services for the carriage of passengers by railway includes services for or in connection with the carriage of luggage. As a consequence of the amendment, franchisees would be required to provide services for or in connection with the carriage of bicycles. That would be an anomalous provision.
The Government do not believe that such a provision would be helpful. As my noble friend Lord Cochrane said, the carriage of bicycles should be at the commercial discretion of the operator. If there is a genuine customer demand for the carriage of bicycles, then operators will have every incentive to provide the necessary space. I do not believe that that is the sort of matter which requires the backing of statute.
Much the same can be said of the related Amendment No. 125C. Again the purpose of that amendment would be to require passenger service operators to provide space for bulky luggage and bicycles on their trains. Its connection with the carriage of mail is tenuous. I can only assume that the noble Lord is thinking principally of the carriage of bicycles and suchlike in mail vans, a practice which I believe still occurs occasionally. Mail vans are intended for Royal Mail use only; other "luggage" is meant to be carried separately, usually in the guard's van. Where space on passenger trains is made available for Royal Mail or Red Star use but is unoccupied on a particular journey, it should be at the discretion of the train operator (if permitted under the terms of any contracts) to decide what to do with the space.
I should point out to the Committee that the carriage of Royal Mail letters on passenger trains is already pretty minimal and is forecast to dwindle almost to nothing over the next two to three years. That is because mail is now carried far more efficiently on dedicated parcels trains operated by BR's rail express systems division. That service is a major contribution to the Post Office's fine record of meeting its first-class delivery targets.
As passenger service operators can be expected to provide appropriate luggage space if that is what customers want, just as BR does now, I recommend to the Committee that, even if the noble Lord wishes to press the amendment, your Lordships should not accept it.
Lord Tordoff: Those are hard words. The position. as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, is significant. He blew the whistle on the whole matter. He said that people can carry bicycles if it is commercially advantageous so to do. Of course, it is not commercially advantageous. The Government know that perfectly well. If the matter is left to market forces, the chances are that rolling stock will be designed and brought into operation which is incapable of carrying bicycles. That would be a great

1495
pity. We should encourage people to use bicycles when they are on holiday rather than strapping them to the tops of their motor cars.
The Government's position on the matter has been underlined. I am not arguing that the issue should go into primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is almost certainly right on that. However, we have had the opportunity of teasing out from the Government what their attitude is and it is clearly not sympathetic to the transport of bicycles by rail.
By having put these amendments forward and succeeded in blowing the Government's cover, as one might say, we may have done a useful service tonight. I hope that the noble Earl's honourable friend in another place, Sir George Young, is able to read what has been said because he is a bicycling enthusiast. He may be somewhat displeased by what he reads of today's debate in Hansard. Having said that, I pass the whole matter back to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Falkland, whose amendments these were. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 76, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption for independent railways
.—(1) Nothing in this Part shall apply to—

(a) any railway or tramway authorised to be constructed and operated on a gauge of less than four feet eight and one half inches; or

(b) any railway or tramway such as is referred to in subsection (2) below, or to any railway assets, railway facilities, or passenger or other services, stations or depots provided in connection with any such railway or tramway.

(2) This subsection applies to any railway or tramway which at the date of the passing of this Act was not operated by—

(a) the Board;

(b) London Underground Limited;

(c) Docklands Light Railway Limited;

(d) any passenger transport executive; or

(e) any body or person (not being one such as is referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) above) which is a public sector operator within the meaning of section 22 above.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2) above, any railway owned by a local authority which is authorised by any enactment to lease the railway to any person shall be deemed not to he operated by a public sector operator.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 125 is in my name together with the names of my noble friends Lord Montagu and Lord Mottistone. I have a note from the latter to say that he is unable to be here today. Indeed, one can read of his activities on the ticker-tape in your Lordships' Lobby as, alas, he is in the Isle of Wight.
I hope that the Minister will find a different song coming from the Back Benches. This is the first time that I have spoken in Committee and my noble friend and Members of the Committee may wonder what the new clause which I propose is about. The present standard gauge of railways is 4 feet 81½ inches, as mentioned in the amendment. I understand from my
1496
noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that that is 1.435 metres, which is the gauge of the railways mentioned in the Bill which run all over Europe and into Asia as well.
The amendment seeks to exempt the operators of standard gauge preserved and independent railways in Great Britain from some obligations in the Bill which we believe are irrelevant to such operations, let alone to the activities of the operators. I should like my noble friend to glance at the first element in Clause 35 involving the closure procedures. The provisions in Clause 35(1) (b) on page 43, line 36, concern the carriage of passengers by railway. The provision of services for the carriage of passengers by railway may, include people who wish to pay a visit to preserved and independent railways, which number over 100. Are such trains classified as carrying passengers by railway for the purposes of the Bill, and hence will they be affected by the notification of closures?
Clause 21(2) (b) on page 22 concerns access. It bears the rubric:
"Exemption of passenger services from section 20(1)",
which deals with franchising. Am I right in thinking, as I have been advised, that subsection (2) (b) gives class exemptions for that type of preserved and independent railway from the provisions of franchising?
Similarly, Clause 15(1) (a) concerns access. I am given to understand that over 30 of the 100 standard gauge preserved and independent railways have access on to British Rail's existing network. If the independent and preserved railways had to comply with all the provisions of access, it might create one or two problems for them.
The last problem concerns licences in Clause 6 on pages 6 and 7. All four matters—franchising, closures, access and licences—in all the provisions under the clauses which I have mentioned present some perhaps minor problems and apprehensions to the over 100 independent and preserved railway operators. They provide something which we never expected to be covered in the entire provisions of the 140 clauses and schedules to the Bill.
Will my noble friend be able to indicate the Government's thoughts on providing exemptions in these four areas for the preserved and independent railways? They are the standard gauge railways and the types of trains and railways which are mentioned in the Bill. They are not the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch type of narrow gauge railway. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down will he consider whether it is true to say that nearly all of the 100 railways to which he has referred—I am familiar with two or three of them —are already privatised? Is it not correct that they are run under licence from the department or from British Rail (I am not sure which) and they are run as private businesses?
Lord Lye11: I believe that my noble friend is absolutely right. They are run as private businesses, but, as I understand it, in the four areas that I have mentioned there are a number of obligations which I believe my noble friend will agree are relevant to the

1497
providers of services. Clause 35 refers to the carriage of passengers by rail. The Committee will know exactly what that refers to. We have been discussing that throughout the Bill.
Does my noble friend agree with me that that phrase really applies, as the Bill would have it, together with all the obligations of franchised and licensed railway services to the 100 independent—I would not call them small—and preserved operators? The force of my proposed new clause is that I seek the guidance of the Government and the thoughts of my noble friend on the relaxation of all of the full implications of the four clauses. I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton and I are on parallel lines, but I had not thought to refer at all to British Rail. These are 100 independent lines. We are seeking to gain guidance and possibly obtain exemptions from some of the obligations which I believe the Committee and my noble friend may agree are not necessarily relevant to those independent operators.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: Can my noble friend on the Front Bench say whether the definition being sought by my noble friends can he encompassed, or may already be so encompassed, within a light railways order? If that is so and the order can be modified to encompass them, it might save a great deal of bother.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for so lucidly explaining his amendment to us. To many of the Committee the argument is somewhat familiar. The amendment which my noble friend has just moved is very similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, moved earlier in our discussions; namely, Amendment No. 23. I refer Members of the Committee to the Official Report for 1st July, cols. 1039 and 1040. So we are retreading very similar ground with this amendment.
However, having listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Lyell said, I wonder whether he has seen the Department of Transport's paper of 24th May 1993 on exemptions, which explained how independent railways were to be exempted from most of the provisions in Part I of the Bill. I confirm that it is our intention to issue exemptions to independent railways from the licensing, access, franchising and closures provisions in Part I. That was clearly stated in our document of 24th May. On the other hand, there may be areas where independent railways share stations with British Rail, where limited application of some of the Bill's provisions may be necessary. There are also some provisions in Part I of the Bill which are intended to apply to independent railways, such as some of the competition law provisions in Clause 59. It is also the case that Part I of the Bill provides some opportunities for independent railways, such as the ability to run their own trains on the Railtrack network if they are willing to obtain a licence for that purpose. A complete exclusion from Part I of the Bill would prevent this. I am sure that that is not what the independent railways would want.
There is one further difficulty with a complete exclusion of particular railways from the Bill, and that is defining which railways it should apply to. The list
1498
in the amendment is defective, for example, in excluding international operators other than BR or its subsidiaries. Our policy is to license any such operators running on the Railtrack network. Dealing with exclusions from the Bill by means of our approach of granting exemptions is, I believe, a better approach.
Lord Lyell: I thank my noble friend for his courteous reply, which was even more lucid and swift than my attempt to introduce my amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend. I have received the document to which he referred. Given what it states, I hope that he and the Committee will forgive me for having moved my amendment and putting the case in my own words. Paragraph 7 of my noble friend's document gave me some cause for happiness. The last sentence of paragraph 7 on page 3 states:
"Any services the preserved railways run on the Railtrack network using the right of access arc likely to be exempted from franchising".
I am grateful for that excellent assurance, although I might look into those that are "likely to he exempted".
My noble friend referred to the licensing of private railways using the network. I presume that his thoughts run parallel to my own on steam excursions from, say, Perth to Inverness. I am sure that a mechanism for granting one and two-day licences could be found.
My noble friend has been kind enough to give us his thoughts in his paper on 24th May as well as a fairly kind reply to my proposals. If I may study his words with care and have a word with him or his advisers between now and the next stage, I do not think that it will be necessary to return to this subject. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 125ZA:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:
("Bids by subsidiaries of the Board
.—(1) It shall be a duty of the Board to organise its activities and those of its subsidiaries so as to permit the relevant subsidiary to bid for the provision of each franchised passenger service.
(2) In preparing any bid under the terms of subsection (1) above, the Board and its subsidiaries shall not be required by the Secretary of State or any other person to disclose to any person information which might, in the opinion of the Board or the relevant subsidiary, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of the Board or the relevant subsidiary.
(3) For the purposes of this section, nothing in section 22 above shall be deemed to prevent the Board or the relevant subsidiary of the Board becoming a franchisee.
(4) In this section, "the relevant subsidiary" means the subsidiary of the Board which, at the date on which this Act was passed or the time when the franchise agreement is made, was providing or operating services for the carriage of passengers by railway in the exercise of a function conferred by or under any enactment.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is now otiose because of the amendment which was carried in the names of noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Marsh. Therefore, I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 125ZA not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Leeds Supertram Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Pwllheli Harbour (Amendment) Bill
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.

  UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS AND SALE OF MISSILES BY MEMBER STATES
  UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS AND SALE OF MISSILES BY MEMBER STATES
  UN CHARTER: STATES' RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE
  UN CHARTER: STATES' RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE
  BAGHDAD MISSILE ATTACK: PRIME MINISTER'S COMMENTS
  BAGHDAD MISSILE ATTACK: PRIME MINISTER'S COMMENTS
  BAGHDAD MISSILE ATTACK; US SELF- DEFENCE CLAIM
  BAGHDAD MISSILE ATTACK; US SELF- DEFENCE CLAIM
  BAGHDAD MISSILE ATTACK: JUSTIFICATION UNDER UN CHARTER
  BAGHDAD MISSILE ATTACK: JUSTIFICATION UNDER UN CHARTER
  INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
  INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
  REFUGEES FROM FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
  REFUGEES FROM FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
  EAST LONDON RIVER CROSSING ROAD LINK
  EAST LONDON RIVER CROSSING ROAD LINK